Back in June, the United States Supreme Court declared war on Man and Woman, on male and female.
The Wall Street Journal published the following editorial, and rightly so they are slamming the perverse outcome of this Bostock v. Clayton County decision.
Rewriting the Title VII Statute of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not just judicial activism, or judicial tyranny, it's a full-on declaration of war against male and female, man and woman, God's beautiful design for all that He has for us.
If each of us
is defined by a ‘gender identity’ related only arbitrarily to sex, we are all
transgender now.
This is wrong. This is outrageous. The notion, the fact, the reality of male and female cannot be willed away simply because six bad lawyers in black dresses say so.
is defined by a ‘gender identity’ related only arbitrarily to sex, we are all
transgender now.
This is wrong. This is outrageous. The notion, the fact, the reality of male and female cannot be willed away simply because six bad lawyers in black dresses say so.
A commonplace assumption of American
liberalism, that courts merely preside over contests of rights, conceals the
judiciary’s limitless power to decide questions of truth without thinking
deeply or even honestly about them. Bostock v. Clayton County is
a case in point.
The judiciary does not have this power. They were never supposed to have this power … ever. The American system of checks and balances merely recognizes the United States Supreme Court as a final trier of fact. The power to determine the constitutionality of legislation rests with members of Congress as well as members of the Executive Branch. Thomas Jefferson asserted his prerogative not to spend money if it was appropriated for Congress through unconstitutional means or for unconstitutional purposes.
The judiciary should not wield such extensive powers to normalize abortion, for example, or to redefine marriage beyond its natural and divine distinctions of one man and one woman.
The ruling holds that sexual orientation and “identity” are
included in the definition of “sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch claims it is a narrow
ruling about sex discrimination in employment, leaving concerns like locker
rooms and religious liberty for future litigation. Underneath this false
modesty lies a much more fundamental decision with vast implications.
This was indeed a "false modesty" decision. There is no such thing as a "narrow ruling" with the United States Supreme Court. The fundamental rewriting of a statute by expanding the meaning of words within a statute is just plain outrageous. The judiciary has no right, has no business rewriting legislation. It's time for civil disobedience to this abuse of power. It's time for MassResistance.
liberalism, that courts merely preside over contests of rights, conceals the
judiciary’s limitless power to decide questions of truth without thinking
deeply or even honestly about them. Bostock v. Clayton County is
a case in point.
The judiciary does not have this power. They were never supposed to have this power … ever. The American system of checks and balances merely recognizes the United States Supreme Court as a final trier of fact. The power to determine the constitutionality of legislation rests with members of Congress as well as members of the Executive Branch. Thomas Jefferson asserted his prerogative not to spend money if it was appropriated for Congress through unconstitutional means or for unconstitutional purposes.
The judiciary should not wield such extensive powers to normalize abortion, for example, or to redefine marriage beyond its natural and divine distinctions of one man and one woman.
The ruling holds that sexual orientation and “identity” are
included in the definition of “sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch claims it is a narrow
ruling about sex discrimination in employment, leaving concerns like locker
rooms and religious liberty for future litigation. Underneath this false
modesty lies a much more fundamental decision with vast implications.
This was indeed a "false modesty" decision. There is no such thing as a "narrow ruling" with the United States Supreme Court. The fundamental rewriting of a statute by expanding the meaning of words within a statute is just plain outrageous. The judiciary has no right, has no business rewriting legislation. It's time for civil disobedience to this abuse of power. It's time for MassResistance.
The court has intervened in a bitterly
contested question—a question of philosophy before it is a question of law—and
codified a radical new conception of human nature with a dubious ideological
history. It has inscribed into law the abolition of man and woman.
Yes, indeed. This cannot be understated. That is exactly, exactly, exactly what the Supreme Court has done with the Bostock decision. We have no duty to submit to this perverse ruling in any way, shape, or form. None.
contested question—a question of philosophy before it is a question of law—and
codified a radical new conception of human nature with a dubious ideological
history. It has inscribed into law the abolition of man and woman.
Yes, indeed. This cannot be understated. That is exactly, exactly, exactly what the Supreme Court has done with the Bostock decision. We have no duty to submit to this perverse ruling in any way, shape, or form. None.
The argument of the case, repeated
throughout its 30 pages, is that adverse employment decisions based on “gender
identity” are necessarily a form of “sex discrimination.” Why? Because it is
impossible to make these decisions without treating “similarly situated”
individuals differently based on their sexes. If a male employee who
“identifies” as a woman were in fact a woman instead of a man, he would not
have suffered adverse treatment. Hence, the majority confidently asserts, “she”
is necessarily the victim of discrimination based on sex.
throughout its 30 pages, is that adverse employment decisions based on “gender
identity” are necessarily a form of “sex discrimination.” Why? Because it is
impossible to make these decisions without treating “similarly situated”
individuals differently based on their sexes. If a male employee who
“identifies” as a woman were in fact a woman instead of a man, he would not
have suffered adverse treatment. Hence, the majority confidently asserts, “she”
is necessarily the victim of discrimination based on sex.
This would be laughable were its
implications not so humanly disastrous.
What we have here is a classic case of justices twisting the law to fit the lie of outcomes that they want to create. Nothing more. Words mean things, unless the powers that be want the words to mean something else.
![]("https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OLSqtbBvQfo/XywzxbLqknI/AAAAAAAB91Q/dWS_vCew4M8HIBKUuENB6tTilglkN5R3wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Gorsuch%2BExtreme%2Band%2BDangerous.jpg")
implications not so humanly disastrous.
What we have here is a classic case of justices twisting the law to fit the lie of outcomes that they want to create. Nothing more. Words mean things, unless the powers that be want the words to mean something else.
Crucial to observe are the argument’s
presuppositions. Justice Gorsuch thinks that a man who “identifies” as a woman
is similarly situated to a woman who “identifies” as a woman. The unstated
premise is that the relationship between our embodiment as male and female and
our personal subjectivity (as expressed in “identity”) is essentially
arbitrary, and that they therefore lack any organic or natural unity.
This profound analysis needed to be presented in court right away. I wonder if the defendants who were defending their right not to allow a mentally ill individual to work in their firm or location brought up this argument in some fashion.
These
assumptions further imply that a man who “identifies” as a woman might
really be a woman, that to be a woman is a mental state, that
we really are Cartesian “ghosts in the machine.” Without such assumptions,
Justice Gorsuch could not claim that such a man and woman are similarly
situated.
Justice Gorsuch is a massive disappointment, and so is Chief Justice John Roberts. I agree with US Senator Josh Hawley's new assertion, in which any future Justice must commit to overturning bad SCOTUS decisions like Roe v. Wade, but also Obergefell v. Hodges and Bostock v. Clayton County.
These are metaphysical judgments.
Yet Justice Gorsuch fails to recognize that the crux of his argument relies on
and effectively codifies them. The question of sex discrimination in employment
is relatively unimportant compared with the momentous imposition by law of
these highly questionable philosophical propositions with their implications
for society.
These arrogant judges live far above and far away from the consequences of their perverse decisions. Shame on them. Shame on all of them. It's time to force these justices to live under the consequences of their perverse decisions.
It is impossible to redefine human
nature for only one person. When a fourth-grade girl is required to affirm in
thought, word and deed that a boy in her class is now a girl, this does not
simply affirm the classmate’s right to self-expression. It calls into question
the meaning of “boy” and “girl” as such, thereby also calling into question
both her own “identity” and that of everyone in her life, from her mother and
father to her brothers and sisters, and all of her friends and relatives. As
well it should.
This probing analysis is essential. Once again, this LGBT agenda is exposed, forced to recognize the fact that the behaviors, the ideas, the ideologies, and their outcomes, are not private matters. They are very public issues with severe public consequences.
If each of us is defined by a “gender identity” only
arbitrarily related to our male and female bodies, now relegated to a meaningless
biological substrate, then there is no longer any such thing as man or woman.
We are all transgender now, even if sex and “gender identity” accidentally
coincide in an overwhelming majority of instances.
Exactly. The court lied. The court pushed a fraud. The court now falsely asserts that man and woman, male and female mean nothing. They are essential verities, not mere tricks of the mind. This is absolute madness what the Supreme Court has unleashed. It's time for Americans of every varying degree of conscience to say "enough"!
nature for only one person. When a fourth-grade girl is required to affirm in
thought, word and deed that a boy in her class is now a girl, this does not
simply affirm the classmate’s right to self-expression. It calls into question
the meaning of “boy” and “girl” as such, thereby also calling into question
both her own “identity” and that of everyone in her life, from her mother and
father to her brothers and sisters, and all of her friends and relatives. As
well it should.
This probing analysis is essential. Once again, this LGBT agenda is exposed, forced to recognize the fact that the behaviors, the ideas, the ideologies, and their outcomes, are not private matters. They are very public issues with severe public consequences.
If each of us is defined by a “gender identity” only
arbitrarily related to our male and female bodies, now relegated to a meaningless
biological substrate, then there is no longer any such thing as man or woman.
We are all transgender now, even if sex and “gender identity” accidentally
coincide in an overwhelming majority of instances.
Exactly. The court lied. The court pushed a fraud. The court now falsely asserts that man and woman, male and female mean nothing. They are essential verities, not mere tricks of the mind. This is absolute madness what the Supreme Court has unleashed. It's time for Americans of every varying degree of conscience to say "enough"!
The example shows the ruling’s
totalitarian character. It requires everyone to live for all public and
practical purposes as if what they know to be true in their pre-ideological
experience of reality—the knowledge we imbibe with our mother’s milk—were
officially false, a “stereotype.” Even worse, it requires everyone to live as
if what they know to be false were officially true.
Telling the truth has now become a revolutionary act. We are in 1984 territory. It's time for us to stand up and resurrect the truth of human nature without equivocation and apology.
Ironically, what is now
“true” is nothing but stereotypes, that bundle of mannerisms,
dress, makeup and hairstyles by which one imagines what it feels like to be a
woman or a man. Worse still, it prefers them, especially when they are at odds
with one’s actual sex. The war on pronouns, an assault upon the language by
which we recognize a world in common, follows of necessity. What we are dealing
with is nothing less than a war on reality itself. And everyone has just been
pressed into service.
Being a woman is now reduced to fulfilling a set of stereotypes that is attached to what "womanhood" is. The facts cannot be understated: being a woman, being a man or essential verities, unchanging realities which cannot be changed, shifted, or pushed away simply because a bunch of bad lawyers in black dresses decide to redefine terms.
Period. And by the way, only women can have periods. Period.
totalitarian character. It requires everyone to live for all public and
practical purposes as if what they know to be true in their pre-ideological
experience of reality—the knowledge we imbibe with our mother’s milk—were
officially false, a “stereotype.” Even worse, it requires everyone to live as
if what they know to be false were officially true.
Telling the truth has now become a revolutionary act. We are in 1984 territory. It's time for us to stand up and resurrect the truth of human nature without equivocation and apology.
Ironically, what is now
“true” is nothing but stereotypes, that bundle of mannerisms,
dress, makeup and hairstyles by which one imagines what it feels like to be a
woman or a man. Worse still, it prefers them, especially when they are at odds
with one’s actual sex. The war on pronouns, an assault upon the language by
which we recognize a world in common, follows of necessity. What we are dealing
with is nothing less than a war on reality itself. And everyone has just been
pressed into service.
Being a woman is now reduced to fulfilling a set of stereotypes that is attached to what "womanhood" is. The facts cannot be understated: being a woman, being a man or essential verities, unchanging realities which cannot be changed, shifted, or pushed away simply because a bunch of bad lawyers in black dresses decide to redefine terms.
Period. And by the way, only women can have periods. Period.
There is no totalitarianism so total
as that which claims authority over the meaning of nature. Increasingly the
courts are assuming this authority, though they typically exercise it in part
unconsciously, even ignorantly, and in part dishonestly and subversively,
all under the pretense of “neutrally” mediating between interests, rights,
powers and authorities. Or in this case, simply parsing “plain English.” But
this is bosh, and no one believes it.
The moment that five bad lawyers in black dresses redefined marriage to mean something beyond one man and one woman, we were in trouble. The moment that the Supreme Court decided that it was OK to abort a baby before its birth at any time, the court took on a role which it had never received, nor deserved.
as that which claims authority over the meaning of nature. Increasingly the
courts are assuming this authority, though they typically exercise it in part
unconsciously, even ignorantly, and in part dishonestly and subversively,
all under the pretense of “neutrally” mediating between interests, rights,
powers and authorities. Or in this case, simply parsing “plain English.” But
this is bosh, and no one believes it.
The moment that five bad lawyers in black dresses redefined marriage to mean something beyond one man and one woman, we were in trouble. The moment that the Supreme Court decided that it was OK to abort a baby before its birth at any time, the court took on a role which it had never received, nor deserved.
The burdens on free speech, free
exercise and, perhaps most fundamentally, free thought, are obvious. But the
burden on the basic unity of human society is even weightier. The court has
abolished the fundamental fact on which every civilization depends, indeed on
which the human species depends.
The court cannot abolish something as true, as fundamental as male and female. They have unleashed legal and political anarchy, granted, but they cannot remove what is true. They cannot abolish which God has created.
exercise and, perhaps most fundamentally, free thought, are obvious. But the
burden on the basic unity of human society is even weightier. The court has
abolished the fundamental fact on which every civilization depends, indeed on
which the human species depends.
The court cannot abolish something as true, as fundamental as male and female. They have unleashed legal and political anarchy, granted, but they cannot remove what is true. They cannot abolish which God has created.
As C.S. Lewis wrote in “The
Abolition of Man,” we will now need the “beneficent obstinacy of real children
for preserving the human race in such sanity as it still possesses.” We can
only hope that such children will come along to point out the naked truth to
our new emperors.
Abolition of Man,” we will now need the “beneficent obstinacy of real children
for preserving the human race in such sanity as it still possesses.” We can
only hope that such children will come along to point out the naked truth to
our new emperors.
Messrs. Crawford and Hanby are
professors at the John Paul II Institute. Margaret Harper McCarthy is a
co-author of this article.
Final Reflection
The Supreme Court of the United States has once again proven itself to be the enemy of the Republic of the United States. The citizens of this country must take on this abuse, and we must resolve that we will not comply with this conformist tyranny.
Male and female He created them. This determination to redefine male and female is nothing more than a perverse attack on God and His righteous rule and authority in the land. There is no excuse for such hatred, for such anti-biological bigotry. We cannot sit back and allow bad lawyers in black dresses to redefine marriage, manhood, womanhood, and parental authority.
professors at the John Paul II Institute. Margaret Harper McCarthy is a
co-author of this article.
Final Reflection
The Supreme Court of the United States has once again proven itself to be the enemy of the Republic of the United States. The citizens of this country must take on this abuse, and we must resolve that we will not comply with this conformist tyranny.
Male and female He created them. This determination to redefine male and female is nothing more than a perverse attack on God and His righteous rule and authority in the land. There is no excuse for such hatred, for such anti-biological bigotry. We cannot sit back and allow bad lawyers in black dresses to redefine marriage, manhood, womanhood, and parental authority.