The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited job discrimination because of sex, also meant to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Incredibly, the majority claimed their decision was based on “the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment” and stated that “we proceed on the assumption that ‘sex’ signified [only] biological distinctions between male and female.”
Yet, sexual progressives had previously failed to pass amendments to the 1964 Civil Rights Act for sexual orientation “protections” 16 times and gender identity “protections” seven times, even during the many years Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency
The Court’s assertion that the 1964 law originally applied to sexual orientation and gender identity does not make sense in light of the fact that some in Congress tried but failed for 56 years to pass these “protections” into law.
The Court further said that the term “discriminate” means what it did in 1964, citing Webster’s Dictionary: “To make a difference in treatment or favor (of one as compared with others).” Of course, “discrimination” or “differing treatment” is widespread. A school board would not hire a legally blind person or alcoholic to drive a school bus. Such different treatment occurs regularly in hiring practices.
Bostock has been hailed by LGBTQ zealots, who obviously want same-sex “married” teachers in every Catholic school and closure of those that don’t comply.
No definition of homosexuality was provided in the decision. Is it mere impulse to same-sex behavior, the actual behavior, or both? Nor does “sodomy” appear in the majority decision, although Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas mention sodomy in their dissent.
This plays to LGBTQ strategy for public acceptance of their agenda. In their 1989 book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote that “the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.” They instead wanted “the issue of gay rights reduced” to “an abstract social question” in order “to emphasize the civil rights/discrimination side of things.”
(To understand the behavior the Court wants to protect but fails to acknowledge, search the internet for “Cara Rice, Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2016” for a candid article.)
One way to address the consequences of Bostock was suggested by founding father James Madison, as well as by John Roberts before he became chief justice.
Madison noted that control of the purse is “the most … effectual weapon” by which any constitution can arm the “representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance.”
Roberts pointed out that Congress can condition or abolish the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts to hear certain cases, noting that for 125 years the Court could not review certain state court actions.
An amendment to the Judiciary Appropriations Act would prevent federal courts from hearing cases dealing with LGBT assaults on religious institutions under the guise of anti-discrimination.
An even broader “discrimination ploy” comes from HR 5, the Equality Act, which would threaten the existence of Christian schools, hospitals, adoption agencies, youth organizations, and churches themselves with bankruptcy, end their tax-exempt status, and decertify schools unless these religious entities rejected traditional moral teachings about homosexual acts.
HR 5 passed the U.S. House in 2019. All 228 Democrats present and eight Republicans voted yes. In the Senate, Democrats overwhelmingly support HR 5. If Democrats win control of the Senate, the Equality Act will pass.
Every Christian should vote against candidates who support HR 5!
ROBERT MARSHALL served in the Virginia General Assembly for 26 years. He is the author of Reclaiming the Republic: How Christians and Other Conservatives Can Win Back America