GAY TRUTH

A woman suing a Maryland Catholic hospital for refusing to remove her healthy uterus as part of her attempt to “change gender” is appealing to the recent Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court ruling that anti-discrimination law should be reinterpreted to cover homosexuality and gender confusion. Thirty-three-year-old Jesse Hammons had been scheduled to have surgery to remove her uterus at the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center on January 6, after having completed blood tests, ultrasounds, and other health screenings in preparation for the operation.  But the surgery was eventually cancelled by the hospital, which says that it is guided by “Catholic health care values” and that it “observes the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.” “A week before the surgery was scheduled to take place, the medical center informed Hammons[’] surgeon that the surgery had to be cancelled because it violated the medical center’s Catholic religious be

In a devastating 6-3 ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt religious liberty a brutal blow and handed the LGBT movement a victory that stunned even them by deciding that both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Antonin Scalia’s replacement Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, and John Roberts joined him. President Donald Trump called it a “very powerful decision,” and most of the top GOP senators greeted the ruling with a collective shrug. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley offered criticism, but for the rest, it appears that Rod Dreher has been correct in his constant warnings that much of the Republican Party is disinterested in doing the tough work necessary to protect religious liberty. To discuss the implications of the ruling, I contacted Dr. Darel E. Paul, professor of political science at Williams College and author of the essential book  From Tolerance to Equality: How the Elites Brought America to

The US Supreme Court, which arbitrarily redefined human life in the Roe decision, and redefined marriage in Obergefell, has now redefined sex. There’s a frightening consistency to these decisions - it brings moral death. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean things that, in all likelihood, not a single member of Congress intended at the time the bill was enacted. At any time in the 56 intervening years, Congress could have amended that Act, or passed other legislation, to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Congress never did so. This decision is a pure act of judicial legislation. But this is nothing new. With Obergefell, the Court had legalized same-sex marriage without even a nod at Congress. In that case, the Court had discovered the right to homosexual marriage in the “emanations from penumbra” of the Constitution. As Kevin Williamson wrote in National Review: The gentlemen who wrote the Const