When convicted felons are allowed to change their name for “gender-affirming care,” you know the justice system is broken — if you didn’t know it already.
That’s what may be happening in Colorado.
HB 1071 is a bill being considered by the Colorado State House Judiciary Committee. If passed into law, it will be easier for convicted felons to legally change their names if they are seeking gender-affirming care, according to KUSA. If you think that’s a bad idea, too bad. Keep your mouth shut, or you might be accused of the crime of “misgendering.”
Just ask Christina Goeke, a Colorado resident who dared to show up at a public hearing to oppose “Tiara’s Law,” which would allow criminals who claim to be transgender to legally change their name.
WARNING: The following contains vulgar language that some readers may find offensive.
Trending:
It was obvious from the start that they did not want me to speak. There were so many of them and so few of us yet they were TERRIFIED for me to speak. They tried to have me kicked out over an Instagram comment before we even got to the Bill! They also did not respect my time and… https://t.co/ntuBRCnCUl
— Christina Goeke (@goeke_christina) January 31, 2024
Goeke wrote in an X post, “It was obvious from the start that they did not want me to speak. There were so many of them and so few of us yet they were TERRIFIED for me to speak.”
I would submit that delusional people don’t like to be confronted with the truth. They can even be terrified of it.
Do think felons should be able to change their identities?
As she attempted to speak, others in attendance yelled over her, commenting on every thing that she said. She then went on to give background on the man who the law is named after, but as soon as she used masculine pronouns, a member of the council can be heard saying, “I’m not gonna allow it,” clearly annoyed at the “misgendering” of the man.
Before being forced to leave, Goeke was able to say about transgenderism, “This is a mental problem, and women and children are suffering because of it.”
Nobody seemed to want to debate Goeke on the point. They wanted her to be silenced, and she called them “cowards” for it.
“Tiara’s Law” is named after Tiara Latrice. According to Libs of TikTok, Latrice is “a drag queen, convicted felon, & s*x worker. Democrats love protecting criminals & embracing s*xual degenerates.”
.@RepLorenaGarcia (D – CO) introduced “Tiara’s Law” which would make it easier for trans criminals to change their name and evade identification.
It’s named after Tiara Latrice, a drag queen, convicted felon, & s*x worker.
Democrats love protecting criminals & embracing s*xual… pic.twitter.com/YrTmDpjLlI
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 28, 2024
As of now, convicted felons in Colorado can change their name only for “good cause,” according to KUSA. HB 1071 would add gender-affirming care as a good cause, though a judge would still need to decide on individual cases.
The change would be made partially because Latrice didn’t like the legal name given to him at birth.
“I hate it. I absolutely hate it,” Latrice said. “I don’t recognize that person. I don’t recognize that name, and there’s something that happens within my gut when I hear that name. It’s almost like a punch in the face.”
When laws are changed because individuals feel one way or another about a word, the legal system isn’t just broken — it may just beyond repair. Subjectivism on steroids leads to chaos and an absence of law.
In another post on X, Libs of TikTok observed, “More background on Tiara’s Law. It’s named after a convicted felon who also performs in drag in front of children. Democrats want him and others to be able to hide his name so people can’t find his criminal history.”
More background on Tiara’s Law. It’s named after a convicted felon who also performs in drag in front of children. Democrats want him and others to be able to hide his name so people can’t find his criminal history https://t.co/k2haFhblZU
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 31, 2024
Latrice’s feelings look to be infringing on Goeke’s First Amendment right of free speech. The First Amendment is under attack by people who are offended that it protects the rights of those who may not agree with a scary idea — like allowing criminals to change their names on a whim.
When the Constitution is under siege by subjectivist wackos who think the world revolves around how they feel, the country is in peril. The Constitution is under domestic attack by convicted felons who are influencing soft-headed lawmakers.
Shouldn’t lawmakers in the United States defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
