Today, Anderson takes aim at Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan). Amash was one of the Republican congressmen who voted for the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment would have simply required federal contractors not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In effect it would have turned Obama's executive order into law. According to Anderson:
Over the weekend, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., posted a characteristically thoughtful Facebook post defending his vote for the Maloney amendment.While I appreciate his vote, I found Amash's Facebook post rambling, contradictory and disorganized. As for Anderson, I am not at all sure that I understand why the word discrimination should be in scare quotes. Nor, for that matter, can I discern how nondiscrimination protections are special legal privileges. The Constitution gives Anderson the right of free exercise. Nowhere does it guarantee that Anderson will be free from discrimination. That was provided by Congress in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act. Therefore he enjoys what he calls special legal privileges.
The overarching policy concern is whether the government should elevate “sexual orientation and gender identity” for special legal privileges, especially in terms of laws barring “discrimination.”
To understand Anderson we must go to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church insists that sex must be combined with procreation or fertility. According to the Vatican, gay people are disordered and nothing compels them to have gay sex which is also disordered. The Church asserts that gay people should be chaste since their sex is non-procreative. The current and previous pope claim that sexual identity is a choice.
The Church is wrong on both counts. Therefore, Anderson is wrong on both counts. It has been estimated that more that 50% of Catholic priests are sexually active and they are deeply religious people who take a vow of celibacy. The idea that gay people should be eunuchs as well is absurd. I believe that Ryan Anderson is a closeted gay man. If he wants to be miserable that's his business. As for transgender people there is a veritable mountain of peer reviewed research going back decades. Earlier today I mentioned Renée Richards and she transitioned about 40 years ago. Trans people do not make a choice regarding gender identity. It is an absurd notion that is unsupportable.
So the real question that I have for Mr. Anderson is this: Why should the arcane and archaic teachings of the Catholic Church be imposed on everyone as public policy?
Anderson is displeased:
But a vote for Maloney is a vote for Obama’s 2014 executive order that added “sexual orientation and gender identity” to the list of protected classes for federal contractors, and added gender identity to the list for federal employees.Fuck yes. President Obama is doing what he can to prevent discrimination in the employment practices of federal contractors. I expect that the future President Clinton (who has more experience in Congress than Mr. Obama) will get the legislature to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the 1964 Civil Rights act which will settle the issue once and for all. Hopefully she will also have a Democratic controlled Senate and a slimmer minority margin in (maybe even control of) the House.
The appropriate response to Obama’s executive order, as I argued two years ago, is for Congress to reject the order, not endorse it in law.
Obama’s 2014 executive order added “sexual orientation and gender identity” to employment policies for federal contractors.
In 2015 and 2016, the Obama administration expanded “sexual orientation and gender identity” policies to apply to other agencies and organizations—most recently with the departments of Education and Justice applying them to schools.
I doubt that Mr. Anderson will either get married (and make some woman equally miserable) or come out of the closet. Meanwhile we just have to put up with him until, like Maggie Gallagher, he becomes entirely irrelevant.