What have I missed? I am completely baffled, perplexed, beyond confused. I sometimes feel like a modern-day Rumpelstiltskin – like I have somehow drifted off into a 20 year sleep, and have now awakened in a different time and place. My country has somehow morphed into a place with which I no longer can identify. And it has happened so quickly, so dramatically, that I am perplexed as to how this transformation has taken place.

This morning (April 7, 2016) I heard that a South Carolina state senator is planning to introduce a bill which would protect the citizens of the state from those who wish to use the public restroom of their choice. Even before the bill is introduced on the floor of the senate for discussion and debate, the backlash has already begun. “We must protect the rights of the LGBT community,” they say. “We must think about the economic impact a decision of this nature would have on our state,” they say. “We must learn the lesson our sister state to the north has now learned since their debacle over this same issue,” they say.

But I say, where did all this lunacy come from in the first place?  What happened to common sense and common decency? What happened to the idea of boys and men going to male facilities, and girls and women going to female facilities? Is that such a foreign idea? Even those in the LGBT community would have to agree that, even though they might “feel” like they are trapped in the body of the opposite sex, they still have the biological parts of the particular sex they were born with. I don’t understand why they can’t simply, for the sake of all things decent, make use of restroom facilities specifically for those of their birth sex.

For the sake of discussion, and with the hope of clarification, let’s think about the three hypothetical quotes I mentioned above. First, “we must protect the rights of the LGBT community.” How about this: I will protect your right to believe whatever you choose to believe about yourself. How about you being willing to protect the rights of our daughters, grand-daughters, sons and grand-sons, and not traumatize them by forcing yourself into a restroom of the opposite sex. You are asking us to respect you, when you show no respect for those who do not see things from your perspective.

The second quote above – “we must think about the economic impact a decision of this nature would have on our state” – is a knee-jerk reaction based on the actions of other states asserting economic sanctions on any state that would stand against the implementation of new restroom use guidelines. Why in the world should a state be penalized for upholding long-held guidelines which protect innocent eyes from being forced to look upon the exposed body of a person of the opposite sex?

And then, finally – “we must learn the lesson that our sister state to the north has now learned since their debacle over this same issue.” Well, what exactly have they learned? They have learned that a very small minority of the population can make demands to replace long-held policies and practices with policies that force their agenda on the entire state. They have learned that there are repercussions to taking a stand for decency and common sense. And they have learned that sometimes a stand for what is right proves to be very costly.

In my estimation, the cost, no matter how high, is always worth it if the fight is over the protection of the innocent. There are ways this matter could be handled without all the extreme volatility we are witnessing. Both sides of the issue must learn to respect the other, even though we disagree vehemently over the issue. And, bottom line, the protection of our children and grand-children should be absolutely the top priority in whatever decision is reached.