And who but Tony Perkins, who is still bent out of shape by the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Here's the whole diatribe, via Joe.My.God.:
I don't know if I have the fortitude this morning to dissect this drivel. Let me just note, as a foundation, that, as usual, Perkins is speaking in code. In this case,"liberty and justice for all": given Perkins' record, we can safely assume that "all" is code for "white, heterosexual Christian men".
And of course, the rest of it bears that out, since it's Perkins' usual attack on gay and trans people, this tine hinging on the meaning of "sex". Perkins, of course, would like us to believe that we live in a world in which nothing changes, or should: attitudes remain carved in stone, and language always means what he thinks it should mean.
And of course, the real world isn't like that. Take, for example, attitudes toward same-sex marriage, one of Perkink's favorite bêtes noires. Pew Research has an instructive article about the change in attitudes on this subject over the past twenty years or so:
One caveat on this: this only notes changes over the past twenty years or so, during the time same-sex marriage was becoming a hot-button issue. It's worth noting that in the period covered by this chart, marriage was already being legalized in various jurisdictions, including the Netherlands (2001), Belgium and several Canadian provinces (2003), and by 2005 was legal in Canada nationally, as well as Spain -- and Massachusetts. If we went back another twenty years, the shift would be much more dramatic.
Perkin's major beef (this time) is with the Court's interpretation of the word "sex" as denoting a protected class in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He maintains that Congress intended it to mean biological sex and nothing more. (And have you noticed the reverence with which the evangelicals regard biological sex?) The Obama administration, which first included gay and trans people in the definition of sex discrimination, quite rightly interpreted "sex" to include characteristics normally associated with one sex or the other. Thus, if you can't fire a woman for marrying a man, you can't fire a man for doing the same. This is the reasoning that Justice Gorsuch included in his opinion. Does anyone think that the meaning hasn't changed in 56 years, with the progress made in gay rights and now being made in trans rights? Only Perkins and his ilk, apparently.
At any rate, that's the story on the latest bullshit from Perkins, one of the most mendacious people in the public sphere. I guess he needs money.
The Fourth of July is a time of national celebration and commemoration. We rejoice in our liberty and remember those who won our freedoms and have preserved them at great cost. Yet underlying these things is a foundation that must remain strong for “liberty and justice for all” to mean anything.
It’s the rule of law. Law that is fair and impartial, consistent and understandable. Without allegiance to the rule of law, we become a nation where those in power can do what they want without accountability. And in this 244th year of our independence, I fear we are on the brink of that happening.
Last month, the court ruled in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that the 1964 Civil Rights Act opposing discrimination based on the biological sex of an individual now must mean that “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote these words, even acknowledges in his decision that the meaning of “sex” in 1964 was not even vaguely connected to homosexuality or transgenderism. In his words, the court “proceeds on the assumption that ‘sex’,” in 1964, referred “only to biological distinctions between male and female.”
America has never been a perfect nation and never will be. But with all our problems, we have made tremendous progress in securing the God-given rights we too often take for granted.
But the exercise of those rights will be increasingly diminished and put in jeopardy if Congress refuses to safeguard them and, instead, allows the Supreme Court to rule however its justices prefer, regardless of the text of the Constitution and the law itself.
I don't know if I have the fortitude this morning to dissect this drivel. Let me just note, as a foundation, that, as usual, Perkins is speaking in code. In this case,"liberty and justice for all": given Perkins' record, we can safely assume that "all" is code for "white, heterosexual Christian men".
And of course, the rest of it bears that out, since it's Perkins' usual attack on gay and trans people, this tine hinging on the meaning of "sex". Perkins, of course, would like us to believe that we live in a world in which nothing changes, or should: attitudes remain carved in stone, and language always means what he thinks it should mean.
And of course, the real world isn't like that. Take, for example, attitudes toward same-sex marriage, one of Perkink's favorite bêtes noires. Pew Research has an instructive article about the change in attitudes on this subject over the past twenty years or so:
One caveat on this: this only notes changes over the past twenty years or so, during the time same-sex marriage was becoming a hot-button issue. It's worth noting that in the period covered by this chart, marriage was already being legalized in various jurisdictions, including the Netherlands (2001), Belgium and several Canadian provinces (2003), and by 2005 was legal in Canada nationally, as well as Spain -- and Massachusetts. If we went back another twenty years, the shift would be much more dramatic.
Perkin's major beef (this time) is with the Court's interpretation of the word "sex" as denoting a protected class in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He maintains that Congress intended it to mean biological sex and nothing more. (And have you noticed the reverence with which the evangelicals regard biological sex?) The Obama administration, which first included gay and trans people in the definition of sex discrimination, quite rightly interpreted "sex" to include characteristics normally associated with one sex or the other. Thus, if you can't fire a woman for marrying a man, you can't fire a man for doing the same. This is the reasoning that Justice Gorsuch included in his opinion. Does anyone think that the meaning hasn't changed in 56 years, with the progress made in gay rights and now being made in trans rights? Only Perkins and his ilk, apparently.
At any rate, that's the story on the latest bullshit from Perkins, one of the most mendacious people in the public sphere. I guess he needs money.
No comments:
Post a Comment