Get ready to hear the term ‘transgender rights’ a lot more

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week on two high-profile cases: one pertaining to California’s Proposition 8 and one concerning the Defense of Marriage Act.

Defenders and opponents of redefining marriage will be paying close attention to the proceedings, as the outcome of both cases will have a profound impact not only on the limits of our constitution and how we understand federalism but on how we understand marriage as well.


10 years ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that denying homosexual individuals the right to marry was unconstitutional. It said that by not allowing them to get married, the state was essentially treating homosexual individuals as “second class citizens.”

Since then, advocates of redefining marriage have argued that Massachusetts serves as a case study that proves same-sex marriage is not as ominous as defenders of traditional marriage say it is.

To support their argument, gay rights activists point to the fact that religious institutions in the state are still operating, that children are being placed in loving homes with two parents as opposed to being wards of the state, and that all people are equally protected under the law.

Inasmuch as some people view Massachusetts as an ideal place to live, it’s ludicrous to think the effects of redefining a societal building block like marriage would be fully realized after only a decade. Indeed, the effects of gay marriage are far-reaching, and will eventually permeate every aspect of society.

When you redefine marriage so that gender is irrelevant, as is the case with gay marriage, you undermine the concept of gender all together. What ends up happening is that gender comes to be understood as a malleable component of human nature. A mere social construct if you will. A construct that must be done away with or redefined in order to “liberate” those who do not fit traditional gender stereotypes. In other words, reconstructing an institution like marriage along gender-neutral lines requires other civil institutions to do the same.

And that’s exactly what the state of Massachusetts is currently attempting to do.

Mary Rice Hasson from the Ethics and Public Policy Center has more. In an essay titled “Will ‘Transgender’ Rights Drive Catholics out of Public Schools?” Hasson writes the following:

The Massachusetts Board of Education (MBOE) recently issued formal ‘guidance’ to the state’s public schools, telling them how to implement new laws protecting against gender identity discrimination. The Board of Education insists that schools must not only provide equal access to educational activities programs but also proactively ‘create a culture’ that would make gender-nonconforming and transgender kids ‘feel safe, supported, and fully included.


Among other things, the MBOE’s ruling grants transgendered students the right to use any locker room or bathroom they want. It does away with gendered dress codes for dances and graduation. And it eliminates gender requirements for sports teams. Most pernicious of all, however, is that “teachers will now have to ‘work with’ other students who object to the invasion of privacy, [in an effort to help] them overcome their ‘discomfort’ [with gender issues] and embrace the agenda of tolerance.”

Transgendered students will also “have the right to insist on being called by any name or pronoun they choose, regardless of its biological mismatch. And other students must go along with it or face ‘discipline.’”

Hasson goes on to cite other cities and states that have similar laws, but she ultimately concludes that this is an insidious attempt at “indoctrination” that “promotes a view of the human person incompatible with Christianity.”

In my estimation, Hasson is correct.

What this points to is that we are living in a world that is deeply confused. It is confused because its relationship with God is evaporating. We no longer adhere to the notion that there is a natural law or an objective truth. We now assert our own self-worth without acknowledging a higher power of any kind. The speed at which we are breaking away from basic truths about the human person is remarkable, but sadly not surprising or unpredictable. This is what traditional marriage supporters warned about. And it is what they will continue to speak out against in the years to come.



  • Chris

    If marriage is no longer an institution to support healthy environments for raising kids and just becomes government mandated validation of some adults’ feelings, then there’s no reason to deny bisexuals, transgender people and polygamists their “right” to “marry”. I don’t know what happened to our country. I guess Rome didn’t fall in a day.

  • Tino Abudagher

    ♫You don’t believe we’re on the Eve of Destruction…♫

    It’s not about morality, ethics, values, or religious beliefs. It’s not about a world view, point of view, mindset, or opinion. It is about “Hard Science”. Unarguable, conclusive, verifiable, objective, rational, biologically efficient Science.

    A simple message, a simple revelation, but one with dire consequences if we do not listen to “… the voice calling out in the wilderness” to a nation on the path to self-destruction.

    The revelation I speak of is objective, irrefutable, and unarguable truth about our species, and the danger we are now facing. This once great nation must be awakened to see the future of our species through the unfiltered lens of pure science.

    In 1989, two young activists began a movement for the normalization of homosexuality. Authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen pointed out that efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships would not be successful unless the movement shifted its argument to a demand for civil rights, instead of moral acceptance. The War had begun.

    I call this the “War” because a Supreme Court victory here for them means the ultimate end of our nation, and of our species. There will be no more battles to fight if they win. This well thought out strategy of “this is about our civil rights,” surprisingly joined the politically defined liberal with many who considered themselves otherwise conservative, and it even brought into the fold some of the “fundamentalists. And, those with no political preference also donned the mantra that went out, “It is about civil rights!” Who could resist that?

    Since then this argument has led to the decriminalization of homosexual behaviors, the inclusion of homosexuals within the United States military, and the legalization of same-sex marriage in some states.

    The United States Supreme Court is now set to hear arguments in two cases that directly address the question of same-sex marriage and the U.S. Constitution. The argument before the court over same-sex marriage is not just about same-sex marriage, and civil rights. Much more is at stake.

    In Darwin’s famous work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, he envisioned the spontaneous formation of simple life evolving into higher forms through the forces of nature selecting the fittest. The story of evolution denies the existence of a supernatural Creator. All evolutionary processes are purely naturalistic. Evolution means “no God.” No God means there are no rules, no commandments that we must obey. Molecules-to-man evolution allows the liberal to live as they choose.

    Roe v. Wade, created the legal concept of “Reproductive Rights,” otherwise known as the right to abortion. This decision by the court surgically removed from our national creed the right to life.

    We should modify the Declaration of Independence to correctly read, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Since Roe v. Wade, no human being has the right to “Life.” Life is in this nation a matter of convenience. And, if Eve decides that this not a convenient time, then with the support and blessing of our government, you must be aborted. All the power of the former greatest nation on earth will make sure you do not see life. Eve’s legal right to not be inconvenienced trumps your right to be born and have life. Couple this decision with what now looms before the court and the survival of our species becomes tenuous at best.

    What we have before us is a nation that decries the involvement of religion in government and the public square. We are a nation that vehemently espouses the separation of state and religion. A nation whose god is science. A nation that worships at the altar of the “Big Bang Theory.” But, now as we head to the U.S. Supreme Court, Darwinian natural selection and human evolution must be cast aside. The liberals must make the case for ignoring science in order to normalize homosexuality. It is about civil rights!

    With apologies to the religious, survival of the fittest is what got our species to where we are today. What should have gone before Congress was not a “Defense of Marriage Act,” but a “Defense of Species Act.”

    I believe that there may be only one instance in our species where behavior may not be a choice and that is in mental illness. Despite the arguments to the contrary, all other behavior is a choice.

    As a nation we have continually engaged in the psychology or “Excuseology,” excusing behaviors of all types so as not to offend anyone. If our species is to survive and continue our evolution we must not continue to look at behavior through the lens of social values, culture, psychology, religion, etc., but rather through lens of objective, rational science.

    Strictly from a common sense basis, how is it that we are even considering a single biologically defined deviant human behavior to be worthy of becoming a “civil right?” This former “one nation, under God” no longer recognizes that any of its citizens has a constitutional right to life (Roe v. Wade), but we are willing to now extend constitutional protection to an aberrant human behavior?

    The use of the words “deviant” and “aberrant” are not derived from some subjective, ethical, moral, or religious judgment. I use them strictly from a biological and scientific standpoint. The evolution of our species is imperiled when we begin to define homosexual behavior as a constitutional right.

    Let us look objectively and scientifically at human behavior. Let us begin with some of the more familiar ones. Drug addiction, alcoholism, pedophilia, the serial murderer and rapist, the armed robber, burglar, drug dealer, auto thief, forger, prostitute, satyr, nymphomaniac, etc., and the list goes on and on. Would we consider any of these behaviors a civil right? Why not?

    Science cannot predict with certainty who will become a drug addict, alcoholic, or child molester. Even if there may be some evidence of a genetic proclivity towards a particular behavior, all behavior is still ultimately a choice.

    Think about this, if in fact homosexuality is genetically determined, if it is not a choice, and the Supreme Court determines that being homosexual is a constitutionally protected right, is Roe v. Wade undermined. Is Darwin’s theory of evolution and survival of the fittest torn down?

    Unlike the rest of us who do not have a constitutional right to life because of Roe v. Wade, will homosexuals become the only human beings that cannot be aborted because it is a civil right to be homosexual? Or will the Supreme Court include a clause in their decision that states that even though homosexuality is a constitutionally protected right, Roe v. Wade remains supreme and homosexuals will be subject to government sanctioned abortion?

    I was once asked by a homosexual friend, when had I decided to become a heterosexual? He was explaining to me that he believed he was born a homosexual and that he cannot change who he is, no more than he could change his skin color.

    I thought about this and answered him that each morning I must choose what I will be. In fact each morning every human being is not only free to, but in fact they must choose what they will be. Tomorrow I can choose to become an alcoholic, or a drug addict. I can choose to become a rapist, or child molester, and I can do this despite my genetic makeup or DNA. There is no power on earth that could stop me or anyone from becoming a homosexual tomorrow. That is our choice.

    He responded that I may choose to engage in any of these behaviors, but that doesn’t make me an alcoholic, drug addict, or homosexual. I may choose to become any of these, but I can quit, or change my behavior any time I want to. He said, in his case he cannot quit being a homosexual.

    I answered that he was probably right. But like him, an alcoholic can never stop being an alcoholic either. An alcoholic is an alcoholic for life, a drug addict is a drug addict for life, a pedophile is a pedophile for life. What they can do is choose to stop engaging in the behaviors of the alcoholic, drug addict, or pedophile. They can stop drinking, taking drugs, or molesting children, but it does become a daily choice for each of them for the rest of their lives.

    Here is where science, evolution, and biology become important. Imagine if tomorrow every human being, including those waiting to be given permission to be born and have life, became a homosexual. In one lifetime humans would be extinct. Let us put aside our morals, values, and religion in this discussion and rely on science and evolution to guide us.

    Of all the human behaviors that we can engage in, only one leads directly to human extinction. This is not conjecture, or opinion based on some subjective morality, or religious viewpoint, it is pure unarguable, irrefutable, objective, scientific fact.

    Homosexuality, by biological definition can only lead to extinction. There is no other possible path for any species. If all birds began engaging in homosexual behavior, they would quickly become extinct as would dogs, cats, horses, etc. Our continuation as a species requires us to be able to procreate. By biological definition two creatures of the same sex cannot create life. The species ends!

    So the question becomes why would we make it a constitutional right to be homosexual, when we know that this leads to extinction, and especially when the Supreme Court has already ruled that no one has a constitutional right to life? Where is the logic in that?

    Some homosexual individuals assert that the true homosexual lifestyle wants nothing to do with anything heterosexual. Their position is that they have freely and knowingly chosen an alternate lifestyle that is preferred to the heterosexual lifestyle.

    Marriage is a heterosexual activity whose sole biological purpose is procreation of the species. By scientific definition raising children is also a heterosexual activity since two homosexual creatures cannot create offspring.

    It is my understanding that those living the true homosexual lifestyle see these individuals involved in this great debate demanding the status of marriage and parenthood, as being involved in a great and unfortunate self-deception. Simply put, it is their feeling that these individuals fighting for marriage, or to be parents, have an obvious conflicting psychological and emotional desire to embrace the heterosexual lifestyle, or at a minimum an inconsistent desire to simulate the heterosexual lifestyle.

    What is clear to me in this argument is that civil rights are those rights that a person should be recognized to possess simply because he or she is a citizen. No one should be denied these rights. We ought not to be assigning constitutional rights to anyone based on their biological behavior, especially when that behavior leads to our extinction as a species.

    I guess we are predictably here today because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, once they stripped all human beings of the constitutional right to life, constitutional rights and life become arbitrary and subject to the whim of those in power.

    “Eve walks among us and given to her is the power to choose…to choose death over life…the human vessel of life has become its destroyer…now comes forth her companion whose mission is extinction…”

    Tino Abudagher

  • Carole

    Thank you for this column– you have nailed it!! You called the whole country confused and you are right— think what these little children have to face in the future!!



Receive our updates via email.