The U.S. Supreme Court recently changed the definition of what it means to be male and female. What does this momentous decision mean for America?
[Darris McNeely] On June 15th, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that has the effect of settled legislation. It has redefined the meaning of the word sex. Their decision came based on the interpretation of Title 7 of the 1964 civil rights law, itself a landmark piece of legislation that aimed to end racial discrimination in the United States.
The court has now decreed that sex means more than biology and genes and DNA. Sex is now interpreted to mean preference and identity. The sweeping ruling will impact every part of the culture of the United States of America from schools and businesses to churches and restrooms. In effect, the prevailing avalanche of progressive cultural trends has won in the nation's highest court what has not been decided by law in Congress.
The Supreme Court has, again, as it did in the same-sex marriage decision of 2016, crossed the line into the realm of God and has interfered with the biblically established divine order of life itself. God made humans in His image, declaring them male and female with distinctive biological and spiritual roles. Without a hint of God's will or purpose mentioned in their ruling, the court has rendered a debasing and unrighteous decision on sexual morality that will further erode America's moral and spiritual culture. This decision invites divine judgment upon a people who do not wish to keep God in their knowledge.
So what does this mean going forward? The Supreme Court's ruling essentially rewrites what is called Title 7 of that 1964 Civil Rights Act. Now that law bars discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The majority court opinion's argument redefine sex in Title 7 to mean more than the binary choice of a man or a woman. Six justices agreed with this argument and the process completely bypassed Congress.
The majority ruling also sets a precedent of reinterpreting the intended meaning of a law when written at a different historical moment by an earlier generation. The 1964 civil rights law came at a critical time of social movement to end racial discrimination in America. It was a landmark legislation that was aimed at righting historic injustice. Ironically, the term sex was inserted near the end of that debate with the intent of actually derailing the entire bill.
There was a time when public views of morality were more conservative than today. The meaning of the word then was only understood to be biological, that is male and female. Now 56 years later, public views have changed and the court has reinterpreted this word with a broader cultural meaning. In a very powerful dissent authored by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justices Samuel Alito, they condemn the ruling as "preposterous" and betraying "breathtaking arrogance."
Justice Alito warns in his writings that the decision will have wide-ranging destructive impacts on key freedoms that Americans hold dear. And he predicts that, "The entire federal judiciary will be mired for years in disputes about the reach of the court's reasoning." He continues, "As the briefing in these cases has warned, the position that the court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal safety and privacy. No one should think that the court's decision represents an unalloyed victory for individual liberty." Quite a warning from Justice Alito.
His dissent lays out seven different realms of American life that will be affected by this ruling. Let's quickly look at what these seven areas are. First, is bathrooms and changing areas. I'm not going to go into the ramifications of this one right now but I think that you can imagine the complications there. The second area is that of women's sports. Justice Alito noted, and this is a quote, "The effect of the court's reasoning may be to force young women to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage including students who have the size and strength of a male but identify as female and students who are taking male hormones in order to transition from female to male." Justice Alito also warned that this ruling may affect professional sports as well, and already there are challenges that are underway on this particular point of women's sports.
The third area is that of housing, specifically housing on college campuses that would seek to maintain separate dorms for male and female, that would be challenged right there and speaks to itself. The fourth area is religious employment. Briefs that have been filed, dissent goes on by a wide range of religious groups, Christian, Jewish and Muslim express deep concern that the position now adopted by the court will trigger open conflict with faith-based employment practices of numerous churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions.
The fifth area, health care and there are multiple issues here. Alito also warns, and, "Transgender employees had brought suit to challenge employer-provided health insurance plans that do not cover costly sex reassignment surgery." So we would see then likely, and obviously the cost of health plans impacted.
The sixth area is freedom of speech. Again, I'm quoting from Alito's dissent, "The court's decision may even affect the way employers address their employees and the way teachers and school officials address their students. Under established English usage, two sets of sex-specific singular personal pronouns are used to refer to someone in the third person, he, him, and his for males, she, her, and hers for females. But several different sets of gender-neutral pronouns have now been created and are preferred by some individuals who do not identify as falling into either of the two traditional categories."
And then finally, point seven is that of constitutional claims. The issues here are wide-ranging and go beyond what we could discuss right now. But the majority ruling has the abrupt effect, a broad legislation that will impact many other areas of public life without the settling effect of debate, discussion, and deliberate legislation. Those who are chairing this decision strongly feel the court is merely catching up with where the rest of the country is on this subject. It is true that people polled can indicate a desire for equal rights and nondiscrimination without stating their moral view on all of those issues.
Frankly, the culture today is moving so rapidly on these and other issues that it is making it difficult to stay informed about what is happening and the meaning and the ramifications for all of society. The United States of America still has a very strong traditional religious stream flowing through its culture. This Supreme Court decision and the social fallout will widen the existing divide in America. Those who hold to a form of biblical morality will feel further alienated by this decision.
We are watching a nation distance itself from a God ordained morality based not only on the revelation of Scripture but the biological truth defined in the Bible and the facts of biology. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans in Chapter 1, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth and unrighteousness because what may be known of God is manifest in them for God has shown it to them." This ruling represents another step away from the knowledge of God. It shows a confused and irrational thinking about the very order of creation and spiritual revelation.
For those who hold the Bible as the standard of truth for human morality and who believe that America is a nation under God, it raises serious questions for the future. Now is a time for each of us to understand the serious times in which we live and to see with God's eyes where America and the world is headed. We will reap what we sow. God will not be mocked. The righteous judge of all the earth will act. We'll be discussing and analyzing the meaning of this more on Beyond Today.