The Equality Act
In 1964, a landmark piece of legislation passed Congress. It was called the Civil Right Act. It was bold and dramatic. It was sweeping in its scope. It sought to remedy 100 years of unequal and unfair treatment of African-Americans with a massive expansion of the role of the federal government in regulating private and public behavior. The Civil Rights Act banned discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of the Act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing. While the intentions of the framers of this legislation were certainly noble, some far-sighted individuals such as Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater and Yale Law Professor and later Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork saw time bombs planted in the bosom of the law.
Goldwater chose to vote against the Act not because he was a racist or a segregationist ( in fact, he was a member of the NAACP ), but he saw that both Title II and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act were possibly unconstitutional. He predicted, for example, that Title VII would herald a massive new federal role in dictating employment in the private sector, eventually leading to preferential treatment and quotas that favored one race over another. He was correct. That’s what so-called “affirmative action” is all about. He was also concerned about the expansive language of Title II and its impact on private property rights. For if the central government can dictate whom you can hire or fire or whom you can serve, how long will it be before that same government dictates whom you can’t hire and whom you can’t serve?
It can be argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 birthed the entire “identity politics” movement that today tears at the very fabric of American society. For, if we can single out legislation to benefit ( primarily ) one demographic group ( in this case, African-Americans ) in our nation, what is to prevent a hundred more demographic groups coming forward to demand its special “carve out?”
This certainly resulted less than a decade later when the feminist movement declared itself unsatisfied with the Civil Rights Act as it applied to the rights of women and demanded an “Equal Rights Amendment.” The language of the ERA was so simple as to receive almost unanimous endorsement from both right and left when it was introduced in 1972. It said: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
Now, who could argue with that?
Yet, did not the Civil Rights Act passed just eight years prior already ban discrimination based on sex? How could ERA improve on that clear-cut and definitive declaration? Why was the ERA even necessary?
Within a few years of ERA’s passage by Congress and arrival at the state legislatures to be ratified, voices began being raised against it. The leader of the opposition was an Illinois mother and housewife and political activist named Phyllis Schlafly. She argued that lawyers and judges would twist the proposed constitutional amendment to abolish any and all distinctions between the genders, potentially harming women in areas such as divorce, child support, alimony, rape, and military combat roles. In other words, she believed that the ERA would mark the repeal of laws that have historically protected and favored women as a class. Before long, state legislatures which had ratified the amendment had second thoughts and began rescinding their approval, leading to the ERA’s failure to achieve ratification, despite an unconstitutional 39-month extension championed by President Jimmy Carter.
Now, four decades after ERA went down in flames and more than a half-century since the Civil Rights Act passed, the adherents of identity politics are attempting to foist something called the Equality Act down the nation’s throat.
The Equality Act is the latest example of the Democrats’ fanatical obsession with creating politically-protected classes throughout American society, classes they hope translate into reliable voters in future elections. These politically-protected classes are to be granted preferential treatment at the expense of all other
members of society. It is the exact opposite of real equality. The Equality Act is designed to sow division and discord within the American house, continually pitting one group against another. It is identity politics on steroids.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and even the ERA sought to ban discrimination based on inherent biological characteristics, such as race or gender. The Equality Act seeks to expand the reach of those protections to aberrant and deviant sexual behaviors, none of which would have been remotely conceivable to the authors of the 1964 law.
The Equality Act is a typical political payoff by the Democrats to the noisy homosexual and LGBTQ lobbies. Despite representing an infinitesimal portion of the U.S. population, psychologically-disturbed males who believe they are women or goats or lampshades are to be elevated to the same status as African-Americans and women. What an insult to the Civil Rights and feminist movements! What a mockery of what Dr. King fought for! Why not special protections for pedophiles or polygamists?
The fact is that the Constitution guarantees the rights of all Americans, regardless of race, creed, or gender. Nothing in the Constitution denies to LGBTQ individuals any of the protections of the Bill of Rights. Read the Ninth Amendment.
What the Equality Act is designed to do is to force the rest of society to accept deviant sexual behavior as normal and routine. Its sinister purpose is to complete the cultural Marxist attack on Western society by denying the First Amendment rights of Christians and religious believers as well as those of parents and children. It would actually abolish girls’ athletics and lead to diabolical gender “reassignment” surgeries and “puberty blockers” on innocent young boys and girls. It would force Christian churches who still believe that sodomy is a grievous sin to accept its practitioners as ministers or priests. It would force your daughter to shower with any biological male who decides on any given day that he’s going to play a girl. The Equality Act is beyond lunacy. It is beyond insanity.
Martin Luther King did not fight and die so that boys could crash girls’ locker rooms or so that Dr. Frankensteins could mutilate young children. It is time to reject the misnamed Equality Act now!
Dr. James Veltmeyer is a prominent La Jolla physician voted “Top Doctor” in San Diego County in 2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2019. Dr. Veltmeyer can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org and by visiting his website at drveltmeyer.com
Do you like my commentaries and podcasts? Help me get the message out to a wider audience by making a donation today. Thank you for your support!