Indiana’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles recently agreed not to “red-flag” people whose gender doesn’t match their driver’s license. That’s reasonable: why should someone be suspected simply because they’re a different gender? Simple, yes? Not to American Family Association of Indiana member Micah Clark.
Through Clark’s imbecilic “logic”, an innocuous decision to end trans stigmatization becomes a terrorist win. Here’s but a small taste:
In a day of rampant identity theft and a war with terrorists, the Indiana BMV believes that not offending a person who is a cross-dresser or someone who has had a sex change overrides any security risk that could happen through a gender and SSI number mismatch.
It gets twice as bad and three times as offensive, after the jump…
Via Chris Dickson:
A small segment of the gay-rights movement in Indiana is claiming victory following discussions with the Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles that resulted in a change in BMV policy concerning security checks. In an apparent effort not to offend, the BMV has agreed not to “red flag” social security numbers that point to a person’s gender if it doesn’t match the gender on their driver’s license.
According to a December 5th alert hailing this change, the Indiana Transgender Rights Advocacy Alliance (INTRAA) and the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) is praising the department for no longer invalidating driver’s licenses or even sending out a computer generated letter to investigate a social security number and driver’s license gender mismatch. According to these groups, “gender mismatches will be ignored by the BMV”.
In other words, in a day of rampant identity theft and a war with terrorists, the Indiana BMV believes that not offending a person who is a cross-dresser or someone who has had a sex change overrides any security risk that could happen through a gender and SSI number mismatch. I am going to sound crass, but there was a time when people who wanted to cut off their sex organs were recommended for psychiatric counseling. Today, they wield enough political power to enact statewide policy changes that appear to place tolerance above basic security concerns.
I don’t think it is overreacting to envision a hypothetical scenario in which “Achmed the Terrorist” comes to America after crossing our practically open borders. He probably needs an Indiana driver’s license to achieve his final goal of disrupting a Colts game in the RCA Dome. He finds a criminal who sells him a stolen or made up Social Security number and Achmed goes to the BMV to get an Indiana driver’s license to establish his new identity as “John the Hoosier Colts fan” who lives in Noblesville. But the SSI number says he’s Jane from Evansville. No problem, he gets a license anyway, because we don’t investigate such mismatches out of fear of offending the gay rights groups. After ignoring the mismatched number at the BMV, the worst happens one Sunday, and police, victims families and the media wonder how it could have happened and why he wasn’t stopped somewhere along the way. Aren’t these the types of things people in high office are supposed to regularly consider in a post 9/11 world?
As I recall, most if not all, of the 911 terrorists had state driver’s licenses. Do we really want to remove certain “red flags” and discrepancies in background checks in an effort not to offend a handful of gay activists who have rearranged their sexual identity and are demanding their right not to encounter the inconvenience that such a drastic step might logically produce at a state agency? The societal embrace of homosexuality has already cast aside a lot of public health concerns surrounding such behaviors, should we now also begin to cast aside security concerns under the mantra of tolerance?
American Family Association of Indiana