UPDATED 7/6/2020 FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY:
This article has flaws. I am not ignorant to that. Continue to point out flaws and challenge them critically and civilly. I know it is possible, because several of my friends have done so. Those are the best kinds of friends.
In this article, “Black Lives Matter” refers to the ORGANIZATION, not the MESSAGE. Of course Black lives matter – in fact, as far as I am concerned, every life matters. Nobody matters more than anyone else, just like nobody else’s opinion matters more than anyone else. If you don’t like my opinion, draw your own. I established this website to give my opinion.
I will never bow to a mob. I have no obligation to prove my character to people who do not know me. I am improving every single day, and this feedback is only going to make my arguments stronger. I have looked at every single comment and I will continue to do so. There are flaws in everything of this world, and there always will be.
I’ve done a lot of thinking since March 2020. Through all of the conflicting ideas running through my head, one idea remains true over all of them:
I love the United States of America.
I love our country. I love all of the different perspectives that make up our exceptional republic, as they are crucial to making healthy progress. However, I sense that the intense issues we face today are nothing but the result of festering wounds. I believe that the hardest and most complicated issues that we face as a country are caused by straying from the Founding Fathers’ doctrine. This includes the Constitution as well as the history, philosophy, and writings surrounding our founding.
I believe firmly that the United States of America is the best country in the world, in part because of its beautiful government theories and foundational philosophies. I believe that our system is unparalleled in human history, serving as a strong model for other countries around the world. The United States of America is the first country in the world that is made of free, self-governing individuals. When applied correctly, our national principles are exemplary.
On that note, I want to establish that I trust the institutions of our government… but I do not currently trust all of the actors within our institutions. Some recent Supreme Court decisions have eroded that trust even further. In the recent landmark case, Bostock v. Clayton County, the plaintiff asserts that Clayton County, GA, fired Gerald Bostock simply because he was transgender – which would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis that the term “sex” includes transgenderism. From the opinion of the court, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch:
The employers also stress that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex, and that if Congress wanted to address these matters in Title VII, it would have referenced them specifically. But when Congress chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, this Court applies the broad rule.
The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.
There’s no authoritative evidence explaining why later Congresses adopted other laws referencing sexual orientation but didn’t amend this one. Maybe some in the later legislatures understood the impact Title VII’s broad language already promised for cases like ours and didn’t think a revision needed. Maybe others knew about its impact but hoped no one else would notice. Maybe still others, occupied by other concerns, didn’t consider the issue at all. All we can know for certain is that speculation about why a later Congress declined to adopt new legislation offers a “particularly dangerous” basis on which to rest an interpretation of an existing law a different and earlier Congress did adopt. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 650 (1990); see also United States v. Wells, 519 U. S. 482, 496 (1997); Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U. S. 617, 632 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“Arguments based on subsequent legislative history . . . should not be taken seriously, not even in a footnote”).
The opinion of the court seeks to incorporate “sexual orientation” within the term “sex” in Title VII, which can only result from a leap of judicial activism. In the last quote, Gorsuch is claiming that other laws have this problem fixed (and explicitly state the distinction between “sex”, “sexual orientation”, and “gender identity”), but Title VII in particular was not amended. I find it interesting that Gorsuch cites the late Justice Antonin Scalia in a quote that undermines the court’s own position (incorporating the statute of “sexual orientation” into “sex” is based solely off of legislative history after 1964, when the original act was written). Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent concisely summarizes the problem with this opinion:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a)(1). Neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appears on that list. For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the list, and in recent years, bills have included “gender identity” as well. But to date, none has passed both Houses.
Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend Title VII by defining sex discrimination to include both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” H. R. 5, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), but the bill has stalled in the Senate. An alternative bill, H. R. 5331, 116th Cong., 1st Sess. (2019), would add similar prohibitions but contains provisions to protect religious liberty. This bill remains before a House Subcommittee.
Because no such amendment of Title VII has been enacted in accordance with the requirements in the Constitution (passage in both Houses and presentment to the President, Art. I, §7, cl. 2), Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of “sex” still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H. R. 5’s provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation. A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.
The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 16 (2012) (emphasis added). If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation—not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time.
Many will applaud today’s decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court’s updating of Title VII. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964.
It indisputably did not.
The current definition of “sex” as applied in Title VII is clearly slated to provide protections to women – not to men, and not on the basis of sexual orientation. The definition reads:
(k) The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title [section 703(h)] shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.
This precedent is frustrating because now, in legal terms, “sex”, “sexual orientation”, and “gender identity” will have no technical distinction. All of the terms bleed into each other and become androgynous. I believe there needs to be a distinction between these terms. They mean different things, and they should not be lumped together in the name of progressivism.
I bring up this ruling to make my point – yes, the outcome of the case is good for people that identify as LGBTQ. The benefits for these individuals are not the problem. The problem is that this was an overreach of constitutional authority by the Supreme Court of the United States that will have unintended consequences. The process was wrong, and it was perpetrated by flawed actors within our faithful institutions. This is also a failure of Congress to perform a check on the Judicial branch.
The proper procedure would have been for a sitting Congress to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to alter the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”. OR, preferably, they would add these individual definitions under the protected statuses of Title VII. Then, and only then, SCOTUS would have the authority to make the decision that it did. SCOTUS should interpret the law, not make the law. If a law is technically vague, SCOTUS should apply judicial standards at the time that a law was written and adopted, like Justice(s) Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas did in this case.
This decision has hurt my faith in our sitting justices. I find it increasingly harder to believe that they are upholding our Constitution in the best interests of the majority after seeing the logical jump made in this decision. It appears to me that the affirming justices, like most of the weak-willed, are appeasing anger and shifting in the direction of the wind.
Additionally, I find it especially chilling that a sitting justice has expressed political opinions at all, let alone on the President of the United States (at the time, a candidate). Forgive me if that doesn’t fill me with confidence that our lifetime appointees are impartially executing their duties.
Of course, there are going to be multiple interpretations of this case – that is the purpose of the court. Although I agree with the dissent of this specific case, I can understand how one could agree with the majority opinion of the court. Through their worldview and their own biases, it makes perfect sense. I formed my conclusion of this decision based off of the knowledge that I have about our government, and others can make their decisions with their own information.
It’s fascinating to see how the justices justify their positions and that is one of the reasons I find legal reading interesting. However, this ability (or willingness) to understand an opposing view is something that I am afraid our country is losing. I chose to go to Georgetown specifically to develop this capacity within myself.
Virtually, every issue is more complicated than what the “other side” makes it seem like. There is a reason for that: morality (right and wrong) differs in this country for many reasons. There is more than one solution to any problem, and there are many formulations of what is right and wrong (for many different reasons). The philosopher Isaiah Berlin made sense of conflicting morality in his explanation of pluralism (the possibility for multiple moral matrices, or moral perceptive sets):
I came to the conclusion that there is a plurality of ideals, as there is a plurality of cultures and of temperaments… There is not an infinity of [values]: the number of human values, of values which I can pursue while maintaining my human semblance, my human character, is finite… And the difference this makes is that if a man pursues one of these values, I, who do not, am able to understand why he pursues it or what it would be like, in his circumstances, for me to be induced to pursue it. Hence the possibility of human understanding.
For anyone who legitimately believes that the “other side” is evil, I encourage you to read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt. Nobody is evil solely because they hold a different political opinion in the United States of America today. They can be factually incorrect, they can be shortsighted, and they can be misguided, but it is disingenuous to write off somebody as entirely “evil”. Simply put, perception is largely affected by moral matrices: in Haidt’s words, “Morality binds and blinds”.
While nobody is completely evil, Dr. Jordan Peterson regularly emphasizes that true evil emerges in the face of ideological possession. This specter has come to haunt the United States as “polarization increases”.
Black Lives Matter is a movement entirely based in unfalsifiable ideological possession, and it does not deserve your support. If you support this group, your emotions are being manipulated to push for fundamentally-incorrect solutions to problems that have many moving parts. The United States of America is not systemically racist today.
The sheer volume of left-leaning ideological possession is suffocating and inherently damaging to those possessed. People that I have known my entire life go to college and suddenly “realize” that the entire United States of America is systemically racist. That is not education; that is indoctrination. If you agree with that narrative, I challenge you to do one thing: read more. It always frustrates me to see how the mainstream media reports news because it is almost always misleading. Additionally, it seems that my left-leaning friends are reasonable in person, but take to the most radical positions on social media. I am equally frustrated to see my peers light up social media with emotionally-charged, deceptive, and manipulative “infographics”, as well as misinterpreted or incomplete statistics. Combine cherry-picking evidence with an enraged mob flooding social media for weeks, and they successfully create the illusion that everything in America is terrible!
On that note, I think it is humorous that college students claim to know exactly how to solve the incredibly complex issues that face us today. In the words of Thomas Sowell, “It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” Truthfully, we as individuals are much more ignorant than we would like to admit.
If you want what’s best for our country, do not “defund the police”. If anything, the police need MORE money to provide more comprehensive training (among other solutions). I am just so very thankful that police departments are governed at the local level. I don’t know what I would do if I lived in a city that legitimately disbanded their own police precincts. I guess I would probably employ my own security… Police officers and other first responders save countless lives. Their job is incredibly difficult. It takes courage and an unfathomable level of compassion to hold the line every single day for people who spit on you at every opportunity. Good police officers are heroes.
Ultimately, ruining the lives of innocent people or “burning down the system” will never solve the issue of racism. Like most things, the solution comes from local, self-government – one of the founding principles we have strayed from. Even more local than a municipality, it will be solved by true self-government, at the level of the family unit. A family filled with love has no room for racism to exist.
Racial disparities exist, but I do not believe they exist for the reasons that Black Lives Matter OR the majority of my peers suggest. I have reason to believe that these issues exist as a result of flawed and overreaching policy beginning after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once again a result of straying from founding principles. This is a discussion I wish to have soon, as soon as I get my facts in order. Stay tuned for that.
Personally, I think a good start to actually ending racism is to cherish our shared national identity. Ideally, we will be able to refer to each other as “Americans” and nothing more. We won’t have to preface it with Black or White or Hispanic or Asian… we can just say “American”. We can say “friend”. We can say “brother”. We can say “sister”. By no means do I mean we should erase different cultures. We can simultaneously remember our cultures and participate in our country. The United States of America is unique in that aspect – you can be patriotic and unified while maintaining your roots. Every ethnicity in America was a minority at some point in history.
My personal experiences also lead me to believe that Black Lives Matter and other leftists are wrong regarding racism and injustice. I never experienced racism until I went to Georgetown. Volunteering to help a club I was part of, I stood at a table with two of my friends to recruit new members. A girl (also a member) came up to our table and said something along the lines of “Everyone’s going to get scared away by the three white men running our table.” Of course, this example is also accompanied by the countless “You wouldn’t understand because you’re a white male” that I get in class discussions. Something is wrong with this supposedly “anti-racist” line of thinking. I even read White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo and I came to one major takeaway: yes, everything is racist if you redefine what racism is and view everything through a dogmatic lens of “oppression”. What a pitiful way to view your neighbors, coworkers, and friends.
Before my political stance solidified, I researched the two sides of the US political spectrum and what they theoretically stood for. After that, all I could use to inform my decision was personal experience, personal preference, and the behaviors of others. After reading many books (culminating with the Jonathan Haidt book mentioned earlier) and witnessing the vitriol of the left in recent months, I have determined where I stand. When statues started coming down, I knew that I had to pick a side and speak up. If I didn’t speak up now, I would only have myself to blame for drastic and unwanted changes to our beautiful country.
I am beginning to understand the unique role I will play in the years to come. I am not an aggressor; I am a defender. I am preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. I am preparing to fight on behalf of my family, my community, my state, and my nation. My existence has a purpose and the path is clear. I will do my part to preserve our nation and work towards a more perfect Union.
We all have a role to play in healing this country. Our divisions are being exploited to drive us apart, and we cannot allow that to happen anymore. Disagreement is healthy – hatred is not. The United States of America can only exist as a nation of virtuous individuals; I just hope that we are still virtuous enough to resolve our problems civilly.
 Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 4 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020).
 Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 13 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020).
 Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 24 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020).
 Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 39-40 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020).
 Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618, 41 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020).
 Berlin, I. 1997/1958. “Two Concepts of Liberty.” From The Proper Study of Mankind, ed. H. Hardy and R. Hausheer, 191-242. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. From The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion, ed. J Haidt. Pp. 369.
 U.S. Const. amend. II. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
ALL EMPHASIS ADDED.
ARTICLE WRITTEN BY WILLIAM MITCHELL TORGERSON.
PUBLISHED BY AMERICAN BUCKLER, LLC.
DEFEND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.