We need the Dems' "Equality Act" if only for the court challenge

In case you missed it on Friday, the House passed a bill being called the Equality Act, designed to expand the Civil Rights Act so it would apply to LGBT individuals. The measure was supported by all Democrats and eight Republicans, and it applies to the same aspects of life as are already covered in the Civil Rights Act. Needless to say, there are some predictable snags awaiting this measure as it proceeds forward. (National Review)

House Democrats voted unanimously Friday in favor of legislation that would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected classes.

The bill, which passed 236–173 with the support of eight Republicans, would protect LGBTQ individuals from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

Conservative critics of the legislation, however, argue that it would harm biological women by eliminating certain protections they currently enjoy, such as the right to compete against other biological women in sports. If signed into law, the Equality Act would require that public schools allow boys who identify as girls to compete in girls’ sports.

On the surface, this legislation shouldn’t be terribly remarkable or controversial beyond the basic flaw originally built into the Civil Rights Act. There never should have been a need for any legislation saying that you can’t discriminate against this or that demographic group. All we really needed to say was that all citizens are supposed to be treated equally under the law and be done with it.

But if we’re going to keep adding favored political groups to the list, you might as well include everyone I suppose. When it comes to things like housing, finding a job and access to government services, there’s no reason to leave out lesbian, gay, bisexual and, yes, transgender people. But as critics note, this would also ensnare questions of competitive sports and “public accommodations” (meaning bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers). And that’s where the inclusive tag begins to break down because we run into issues with the “T” in LGBT.

Nobody that I’ve heard from is saying that gays and lesbians shouldn’t be able to compete in sports against their own gender. If they are, they are in a very small minority and shouldn’t be listened to. But as we’ve discussed here on countless occasions (and as was pointed out during the debate over this bill), as soon as you allow biological males “identifying” as females to compete in women’s sports or start crossing the gender lines in public accommodations, problems follow. If this trend continues, competitive women’s sports will soon be a thing of the past.

That’s why you may be surprised to hear that I am hoping the Senate takes up this measure, passes it, and sends it to President Trump. If this goes into law, we may finally be able to force the Supreme Court to take up this question once and for all. You are free to dress how you like and call yourself whatever you want. You should be able to apply for any private sector job and find a place to live. But when your situation begins to impact other people, there has to be a line drawn.

Humankind consists of two genders (aside from those born with genetic anomalies) that can be readily identified by medical science. And that distinction does show up in the ways we interact, with competitive sports broken down by gender being one of the more prominent examples. The court needs to either acknowledge this and put the matter to rest or surrender and simply admit that we are culturally falling down into a pit of madness.