Equality Act

The Equality Act and the Destruction of Sex and Freedom: Part 1

on February 6, 2019

American Christians have grown used to intense and crucial battles for religious liberty, which seem likely to continue for some time. But what looms on the horizon, and what seems to be a virtual certainty should there be another Democratic administration paired with a Democratic Congress, is a national sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) law. This would sweepingly deny religious liberty in most areas of public life, and constrict the private sphere in which religious freedom can be found. The current instrument to do this is called the Equality Act, and its consequences are so sweeping that it will negatively impact many Americans who are completely unconcerned with religious liberty. It was this more widespread impact which was the topic of a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation on Jan. 28, assembled by traditional marriage and religious liberty advocate Ryan Anderson.

The general problem with making inclination and behavior the basis for anti-discrimination law, rather than some physical characteristic, is that physical characteristics can be practically treated as equal, whatever one thinks of their true equality. But to make inclinations and behaviors equal is impossible, they are clearly not equal. “Equality” here must mean making some personal inclinations and behaviors immune from adverse judgment (discrimination). And this can only be done by making the sensibility of people writing and influencing the law supreme over all society, overriding other personal and common sense judgments.

Certainly the most radical aspect in LGBT liberation is transgenderism, or self-defined sexuality. If one can claim to be a man or a woman regardless of one’s anatomy, then these terms are obviously meaningless. If one can demand complicity in this delusion, as LGBT liberation in fact does, it is a gross violation of conscience and personal freedoms. It is transgenderism which will most noticeably affect the American public at large, going significantly beyond the threat to religious liberty.

The general negative impact on society at large was well illustrated in the panel Anderson assembled, consisting of feminists from the Left, whose objective of sexual equality has now been superseded by the new moral imperative of transgender liberation. Despite deep convictional differences between social conservatives and leftist feminists, Anderson said that “where we do agree, we can and should work together.” Indeed, the freedom and safety of citizens in the future demand it. Anderson noted that currently two percent of high school students nationally “identify as transgender,” so that any complicity the state will require in transgenderism is a very serious problem.

Jennifer Chavez, a “feminist, secularist lawyer and mother,” affiliated with the Women’s Liberation Front, focused on plight of parents when a child declares himself or herself to be “transgender.” Such children may want and be encouraged to pursue destructive changes to their young and developing bodies, and seek accommodations for the opposite sex. The parents may often receive no support from school authorities and can expect none from the news media, which present self-defined sexuality as the next wave of liberation.

In a typical case she cited, a thirteen year old girl “who didn’t fit in” with other girls decided she was a boy after a school presentation, an understandable decision in a world in which “hormones and surgeries” are common responses to sex confused children. Professional help the mother sought simply supported the daughter’s transgender claims, and “falsely assured” the mother that puberty blocking drugs recommended “were well studied and a perfectly safe way for her to explore gender … therapists are actively trained and socially pressured not to question these increasingly common identities” the mother was quoted as saying. Where there are “conversion therapy bans,” it is illegal to “question a child’s belief that she is of the opposite sex,” (a legal requirement that would seem to violate free speech in a basic, content-oriented way). “Parents who do not support their child’s ‘gender identity’ risk being reported to child protection services, and possibly losing custody of their children” the mother added. “The media glamorizes and celebrates trans-identified children while ignoring stories like mine,” she said. “Why are physicians medicalizing children in the name of an unproven malleable gender identity, and why are law makers enshrining gender identity into state and federal laws.” the mother asked. Similar stories from parents showed both health professionals and mass media supporting young people against their parents in destructive paths that could severely impact adult life.

Another parent’s story showed that Planned Parenthood, in particular, has taken transgender liberation as a key objective. “In only one visit, and with just a little bit of blood work, Planned Parenthood will cheerfully enable young women and men to pursue their ‘authentic selves’ through cross-sex hormones,” the parent concerned was quoted as reporting.

That the entire American establishment, including professional organizations and news sources (other than committed conservative ones) could be promoting such irrationality seems incredible, but it is the hard reality that anyone concerned with the well-being of young people and the future of the country must face. Indeed, one does not know what hard decisions one may have to face in any walk of life, because the nation’s leadership classes no longer recognize the difference between men and women. How the country reached this point and its consequences for groups promoting sexual liberation were briefly reviewed in the remainder of the panel. That and further discussion of the Equality Act’s provisions and its consequences for religious and personal freedom will be addressed in subsequent articles.

  1. Comment by Ken Dean on February 6, 2019 at 8:20 pm

    The “T” will next be followed by a “P” for paedophile. First we had to accommodate the queers then once settled in they wanted to be Sunday school leaders and scoutmasters.Now they want to have weddings and be pastors and bishops. Christians will be extinct in 20 years.

  2. Comment by Search4Truth on February 22, 2019 at 1:49 pm

    Ken, Christians won’t become extinct. In fact, real Christianity may actually begin to thrive again in this country. Look around the world and check your history. When receiving approved status from the state, Christianity tends to align with the state and then becomes stale. However, when under persecution, the real message spreads like wild fire.

  3. Comment by Lee D. Cary on February 7, 2019 at 1:12 pm

    The progressive movement does not quit. Any loss is but a temporary set-back. A failure of the OCP will shift the field of debate – not end it.

    Here’s the possible next move if OCP fails: A class action law-suit, claiming discrimination in employment, jointly filed by the Reconciling Ministries Network and the UM Queer Clergy Caucus (with an amicus curiae brief from the UMC Council of Bishops).

    The courts may dodge addressing the issue, but that doesn’t mean it won’t get widespread media play. And that alone will be unfavorable to the UMC.

    If this happens, it will echo a seminal book on the LGBTQ movement: “After the ball: how America will conquer its hatred and fear of homosexuals in the ‘90’s,” Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, Doubleday, (c) 1989. For example:

    • “The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.” (p. 178)
    • “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector.” (p. 183)
    • “Our campaign should not demand explicit support for homosexual practices, but should instead take antidiscrimination as its theme. Fundamental freedoms, constitutional rights, due process and equal protection of laws, basic fairness and decency toward all of humanity – these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.” (p. 187)

  4. Comment by Martha Arizpe on February 23, 2019 at 3:56 pm

    I guess one can “claim” to be whatever one wants. In reality, choosing to be something does not actually change a thing. When a baby is born, if the child has a penis, it is a male child. If the baby has a vagina, it is a female child. Man has somehow managed to make God’s obvious gender signs into something that is controversial. And regardless of clothing, makeup, hormones, or surgery, a baby born with a penis will grow to be a man, and a baby born with a vagina will grow to be a woman. There are no other choices. Which is why there was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam; and one male and one female of every living thing on the ark – otherwise, many species would be gone. It is not complicated at all, as God was very clear. Now God gave us free will, so we may choose to act however we want. But our choices do not change a single thing – our gender is in our DNA, and it is what it is. Man may have different ideas; but then, MAN HAS NOT CREATED ANYTHING, so man might wish to rethink his theories. And Christians need to decide whether they believe in the Word of God or the politics of Man. Regarding the issue of gender, one cannot believe in both, as they are diametrically opposed.

  5. Comment by Ben Dover on May 21, 2020 at 2:42 pm

    But why do you care? Why don’t you want people to have the freedom and liberty of being whoever they want, if it doesn’t harm you?

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.