“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass – a idiot”. Oliver Twist, (Shakespeare)

There are only two sexes, and an X-Ray will determine if an individual has a skeleton capable of having a baby or not. Soft tissue can be altered, and the mind may deny reality believing one is a giraffe, but the skeleton does not lie.
When Bruce Jenner’s bones are discovered a thousand years from now, the Archeologists will declare the skeleton as “Male.” That is correct, Bruce’s (or Caitlyn’s, if you prefer) opinions to the contrary notwithstanding. 

And therein lies the rub for advocates of homosexual rights…the wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the act in question bars discrimination because of “sex.” Modern progressive political interpretation of the term “sex” (a biological term) includes “sexual orientation,” (a psychological term).

In the end, of course, it is the Supreme Court that will rule. Lower Courts have previously ruled, and most recently the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th District, ruled 8-3 that the two terms were synonymous.

The Obama administration Justice Department always sided with those believing that the terms were synonymous, but the Trump administration has reversed the Justice Department stand, arguing that Congress wrote the law and that Congress had many opportunities to change the law if they wanted, but has failed to do so. The Trump administration stand is that “sex” means “sex.”

The stakes are far greater than just the rights of homosexuals, because it brings into play two separate branches of government, and the third branch which changed its support from one to the other.

 In the end, the Supreme Court will likely rule. Meanwhile, a workplace discrimination case before the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd District, is the opportunity that the Trump Department of Justice has taken to file a new Amicus Brief with their new interpretation of the wording of the Civil Rights Act.

The basic question is the past tendency for courts at all levels to legislate from the bench. The new Justice Department stand gives courts the opportunity to rule that Congress has legislative power but courts have usurped the legislative process for so long that one case is unlikely to change that. Still the opportunity to exists, particularly if a Justice retires or falls ill, and Trump gets one more opportunity.

I am sanguine with homosexuals getting workplace protection, I am just hoping for a law change so that the courts will be disinclined to rule that the term “Black” really means “Blue.” Logically it doesn’t and legally it should not either.

I have never understood how law students could check their common sense and logical reading ability long enough to get their degree. I had intended to go to law school after the Naval Academy, but the program the Navy had to go into Maritime Law ended before my graduation.

In my early 30’ I was offered a partnership in a law firm, if I was willing to resign from the Navy and complete my law degree, all expenses paid, from Berkeley. After much consideration, I refused the offer because the law firm did not do litigation, and I saw myself in the courtroom.

I am glad it never came to pass. I would have killed a law professor…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: