Transgenderism, Law, and the Culture War: Fundamental Facts We All Need to Know, Fact 1.1.
By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman, Eagle Forum’s Court Watch President, Blackstone Institute*
The U.S. Supreme Court’s historic first transgenderism decision, known as the Bostick case,is both unconstitutional and religious in nature. Why is this true, and what do these truths portend for America’s future?
“Biology is not bigoted.” But the Bostick decision is bigoted. The first fact was recently asserted by John Bursch, ADF vice president and a defendant’s attorney in the 2020 three-case set of pro-homosexual/transgenderism cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and known as the Bostick decision. The second fact, almost totally eluding attention, is that Bostick is bigoted, and also religious in nature. The SCOTUS ruling in favor of the homosexual/transgender plaintiffs not only opened the door for discriminatory acts against the Judeo-Christian worldview and its sexually orthodox foundations. But the ruling is facially (regardless of application) bigoted/discriminatory against Judeo-Christian groups. The New Sexualism, in its advocacy of homosexual/transgender rights, is religious in nature – and typically furthers its cause in a manner that is bigoted against the Judeo-Christian worldview. How do we justify these contentions? What are the constitutional consequences of these facts? How could such a dangerous decision as Bostick be rendered in an America founded on the Judeo-Christian worldview? And what can/should defenders of our foundations do to reverse this deadly trend? To find out, read more...
“Biology is not bigotry.” So declared John Bursch, vice president of appellate advocacy for the Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF argued for the Harris Funeral Homes in a companion case to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostick v. Clayton County, Georgia. Bursch spoke the truth. But the ruling in favor of transgenderism in the Bostick and Harris cases as well as the Zarda case, reveals the power of the New Sexualism movement in America, especially the exponential spread of the power of the transgenderism wing of the movement. This phenomenon is creating in American culture and law an earthquake of 10-point magnitude.
The epicenter of this earthquake is the U.S. Supreme Court. Referred to as the Bostick decision, these three casesreveal how the tectonic plates of philosophy and theology/religion basic to American law and culture are being tossed about like grains of sand by America’s internal enemies. These virulent foes, who collectively and accurately may be described as, “the Humanist worldview,” are characterized by a deadly hatred for Judeo-Christian advocates. Unfortunately, Humanists are experiencing varied and numerous successes against the Judeo-Christian worldview in America’s Culture War.
What has totally escaped our understanding is the Fundamental Fact we discuss in this article: the transgenderism movement is by nature a religious movement. Proven below, this assertion is monumentally important constitutionally. Because Bostick upheld transgender rights, it rejected the orthodox sexualism of the Judeo-Christian worldview/religious/theological positions. Thus, the case incorporated vicious anti-Judeo-Christian standards into American law. So regardless of the results of this case, the decision is unconstitutional – it facially (i.e., “on its face” – regardless of how it is applied) severely violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause and the rights of Christians and similar Judeo-Christian advocates of the Biblical position guaranteed by those clauses. Additionally, Title VII was morphed into an unconstitutional statute.
Understandably, the situation has deteriorated to the point that credible scholars in a variety of fields are sounding the alarm of impending doom for the republic as we have known it. Just two of the many examples of this scholarly outcry were heard as early as 2015 and 2016. In a vanguard-level 2015 conference on sexualism and transgenderism, prominent American theologian Dr. Albert Mohler declared that, [this movement] represents the cultural dilemma about gender and sexuality even more clearly than homosexuality Indeed, this moral revolution has expanded so rapidly that it throws into question the “very existence of biblical Christianity.”
Vanderbilt Law Professor Carol Swain agrees. She asserts that the New Sexualism and transgenderism are “A form of cultural Marxism,” “an aggressive agenda to destroy Western traditions, values, and norms . . . one which is especially threatening to the Christian faith.”
Professor Swain and Dr. Mohler have solid grounds for their concerns regarding the dangers to “sexual orthodoxy,” as we have already demonstrated in relation to the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The Bostick case reveals more clearly than ever before the validity of fears concerning transgenderism’s dangers. In this series of studies on transgenderism, we shall analyze some of the most compelling arguments against the transgenderism movement, with particular reference to Bostick. Certain “Fundamental Facts” that we all need to know are organized into six categories. In order to present the broadest possible picture of transgenderism, law, and the Culture War, we must take excursions not only into the law and Bostick per se, but also into theology, philosophy, history, etc.
Our Fundamental Facts are organized into six categories and include truths supporting that category. Each category focuses on one of the “core concepts” essential to a worldview, be it Judeo-Christian or Humanistic. We shall see that the Judeo-Christian position regarding each core concept is superior to the Humanistic position. This leads inarguably to the conclusion that American law and culture must rest on the Judeo-Christian worldview at every point.
NOTE: Each core concept is identified by a label that may initially sound overwhelmingly scholarly and beyond “ordinary understanding.” This is not the case! We academicians love big words; but many of these words, like the ones we use here, have simple meanings that are understandable by the “reasonable adult.” So do not be intimidated! Much of America’s Culture War is a war of words, and we in the Judeo-Christian community are in dire need of a massive vocabulary lesson.
As we launch our analysis of Bostick, it is critical to note that the case came to the Court as an issue of “statutory, “not “constitutional,” interpretation (a fact we will examine in a later issue).. Had the Court followed the body of rules governing judicial interpretation of statutes – rules governing American law from the beginning until the onslaught of judicial activism in the Twentieth Century—Bostick would not have assumed the monumental significance it now assumes.
The New Sexualist plaintiffs argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination because of sex extended to transgender rights. The Court’s duty is to interpret the words of the law, including “sex,” as intended by the Congress which wrote the law – the Congress of 1964. Obviously, “sex” by that standard did not include homosexuality or transgenderism. But the Bostick Court ignored that vital fact and chose to rewrite the law – to interpret “transgenderism” into the word “sex.” Thus, Bostick took on the intrinsic characteristics of the transgenderism movement, including the religious character of the movement, rendering the ruling, as we outlined earlier, unconstitutional. Therefore, we discuss from now on the transgenderism movement in general and Bostick in particular as unavoidably manifesting the same intrinsic nature. How, then, do we demonstrate this religious nature?
ONTOLOGY. This term refers to the essential nature, or meaning, of something. In the transgenderism debate, we must start with the very nature of the transgenderism issue itself. Fundamental Fact #1 is, as already stated, that the Bostick decision and the transgenderism movement in general is not only a scientific, political, etc. issue, but also essentially a religious issue, as asserted by the Judeo-Christian worldview and the sexual orthodoxy which is one of its central components. Truths about Bostick and the transgenderism movement in general support this assertion.
Transgenderism directly involves the existence and nature of God. The Judeo-Christian worldview rests on the truth that at the heart of all reality is the transcendent-infinite yet personal God revealed in the Old and New Testaments. As the ultimate Creator, God formed man and decreed that the human race should include two, and only two, sexes – male and female (Gen. 1:27ff.). Nothing is a more fundamental characteristic of humanity than this binary structure of sexuality. Transgenderism viciously assaults this Divine fiat, however, by postulating a continuum, a series of indefinite sexual categories into which humans may divide. Transgenderism also asserts that human beings may choose their own categories, with the right/ability to change their choices as they see fit. This grotesque reframing of human sexuality is a devastating slap in the face of the Creator, thus making transgenderism a religious issue because God is the center point. Any such issues concerning God are ipso facto “religious.”
Bostick and the transgenderism movement defy numerous additional Scriptures which describe the beauty and significance of the body to God. These views of the human body can be seen in such Old Testament references as Psalm 100:3 and 139:13-16. The body receives additional significance in the New Testament, where it is repeatedly referred to as the “temple of the Holy Spirit,” a vital dwelling place of God on earth (e.g., Rom. 12:1 and I Thess. 4:4). Any effort to fundamentally alter the basic nature of the body is, therefore, a bodily desecration of the most serious nature – further proof of the religious nature of transgenderism.
Bostick and pro-transgenderism arguments have “religious” attributes. To argue, as do Humanistic supporters of Bostick, against the existence or nature of God as depicted in orthodox Christianity, His acts of creation, etc. do not render the Humanistic arguments secular. Rather, their arguments simply rest on a religious position opposite to that of the position of Biblical advocates of the Judeo-Christian worldview.
Each of the two worldviews is secured to a theological/religious foundation, a fact clearly embraced and articulated by Humanists themselves especially in earlier twentieth century debates when Humanism was not so surreptitious about its real nature and scope. [cf., The Humanist Manifestos, I, II, and III.] This fundamental fact must be acknowledged if honest, scholarly debates on transgenderism are to go forward.
NOTE: The term “religion” as we have used it thus far has, of necessity, referred to “religion” in the very broadest terms possible. But this term, like so many, can have a more specific meaning in certain contexts. In the U.S. Constitution, “religion” is not an all-encompassing term as we have thus far used it. Rather, in the Constitution, as in the vital First Amendment, “religion” clearly refers to sects, denominations, groups, etc. within the Judeo-Christian worldview, and only to certain of those categories. This fact is clearly demonstrated by a massive body of study produced over many decades and beyond our scope of study here. Our point here is that transgenderism cannot claim any constitutional protections under the First Amendment or other provisions relating to “religion.”
Even this brief analysis of the Bostick Court’s totally insupportable injection of the New Sexualism into the term “sex” in Title VII reveals little about the true meaning of the Constitution. But the ruling reveals much about the Court and the Culture. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, issuing this stinging rebuke to the Court for committing “a more brazen abuse of the [Court’s] authority to interpret statutes [which] is hard to imagine.” We pursue a more detailed examination of the nature of this abuse of power, what it involved, how it was perpetrated, and what it portends for the future in our next issue.
*Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., President, Blackstone Institute; National Chairman, Eagle Forum’s
Court Watch; Designer/Director, Christians Confronting the Culture Initiative Copyright © 2020 by V. C. Armstrong