The culture warriors had better gird themselves, for we appear to be entering an era much like the 1960s to the 1970s when the federal courts overturned sensible Christian State and local laws for the sake of radical, diabolical social agendas – laws that banned abortion, laws that allowed Christian prayer and Bible reading in public schools.
The State laws threatened now are those protecting minors from drag shows, and from permanently mutilating, gender-changing surgeries and hormones. Several States have passed them into law, but now the federal courts are swooping in to veto them.
Tennessee’s law outlawing ‘adult cabaret performances’ in the presence of children has been struck down by a federal district judge because it violates the precious 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech/expression of the upstanding drag queen citizens.
Arkansas and Florida have had their laws banning trans surgeries and hormones for minors overturned by federal courts, claiming violations of the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.
The legal reasoning is dubious, of course.
Second, banning the self-chosen harm of children in this instance (trans surgeries and drugs) does not violate their equal protection under the law any more than banning their use of harmful drugs or drinking of alcohol or their being able to terminate their young lives via assisted suicide.
Third, the Due Process claim – that parents have the right to raise their children as they deem fit, even if that includes allowing them to change their sex – is selective, for it isn’t upheld in other instances by liberals/leftists, such as allowing parents a choice in where their children can be educated, or in the instance of requiring parents to be notified before a minor child could have an abortion.
All of these rulings and their reasonings open the door to some frightening developments: the first, to allowing adults to have sexual relationships with minors; second, to expanding the ‘rights’ of children to engage in harmful activities, even the taking of their own lives (as is being proposed in Canada and which is legal in the Netherlands and Belgium); the third would limit a State’s ability to restrict harmful behavior using the insincere pretext of ‘parental rights’.
Now is a crucial time for the States passing these good and necessary laws. When Engel v Vitale, Abington v Schempp, Roe v Wade, and the rest began to be handed down by the federal Supreme Court, there should have been an absolute uproar from families, churches, counties, States, etc. Regular business should have ground to a quick halt by rightly incensed citizens, and protests should have been undertaken until the rulings were cancelled by one means or another . . .
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!