Activist justices triumph in new SCOTUS ruling

Dear John,

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court bypassed Congress and by judicial fiat inserted sexual orientation and gender identity into Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The high court issued its 6-3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a decision that consolidated a total of three cases into one. The ruling shocked conservatives because joining the liberal wing of the court were two supposed constitutional justices –– Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who penned the wording of the decision.

The 1964 law prohibits discrimination on the basis of a number of characteristics, including "sex." Gorsuch admitted that the meaning of the word as written referred "only to biological distinctions between male and female" –– not sexual orientation and gender identity, as the plaintiffs claimed.

Nevertheless, Gorsuch proceeded to create a loophole through which he drove the legal result he desired.

Justice Gorsuch claimed he followed a strict textual interpretation of Title VII, which he said required the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in federal law.

Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissenting opinion, issued a scathing response to Gorsuch. Alito wrote:

The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court's opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should "update" old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

Justice Alito further dissented stating, "There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive. … A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall."

This Supreme Court ruling marks yet another in a growing list of betrayals of the U.S. Constitution by those sworn to uphold it. The separation of powers created by that document is not only nonnegotiable, it is the very heart of our republic. By clearly legislating from its bench, what the high court has done is remove yet another brick from the wall meant to defend the country against the prospect of tyranny. If the Supreme Court does not care about what the Constitution says, why should anyone else?

Those who love and respect the founding document of our republic must continue to call out these abuses and to fight and protect the First Amendment freedom of religious liberty allowing Christians to share the gospel freely. There are forces intent on destroying the greatest freedom experiment in human history, and true patriots must peacefully continue to uphold the principles that have made this country so great.

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association