May 22, 2012 · By Gina Miller · 13 Comments
Listen to the Christian Patriot Politicast of this column
Last week I got an email from Walt Heyer. You may be familiar with Walt through his websites, his books, and his radio and television appearances. He is a former transgender who found salvation and freedom through Jesus, and now he uses his hard-earned life lessons to help others who are struggling with gender identity problems.
His email to me expressed his concern,
“With more and more states voting for marriage between one man and one woman they have, in my view, failed to identify what a man or woman is. The same states are allowing men and women to change genders and obtain a cross gender legal status without any surgery so then same sex marriage law is rendered ineffective I feel.”
I was a bit stunned after reading this. As many columns as I have written speaking out against the radical homosexual movement—the sexual anarchy revolution—and defending true marriage, this is an aspect of it I had not considered. I wrote back to Walt thanking him for bringing this important issue to my attention. I decided to address this subject in today’s Politicast column, and Walt agreed that it should be done.
In a follow-up email Walt offered these points,
“North Carolina’s new marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman is in jeopardy. Same sex partners can just obtain and use a US passport as ID for a marriage license. As a result, the ban on same sex marriage laws is utterly feckless.
When two homosexual men, say Bruce and Donald, want to be married in a state that bans same sex marriage, one of the boys simply obtains a US passport as a female. No proof of gender is required. The passport office only requires a driver’s license with a somewhat female name and the homosexual’s claim that he is in the process of a gender change. This gaping hole will empower homosexuals to ‘skirt’ marriage laws by using an altered US passport.
The current laws as drafted will not prevent same sex marriage for homosexuals.”
This is true. The fact is that many states allow people to use proof of their “sex change” to obtain passports and other identification presenting them as being of the opposite sex, and in some cases, no proof of any “sex change” is needed; just declare that you are the opposite sex, and boom!, it’s done. As Walt tells us, without specific language defining “male” and “female,” this makes the traditional marriage laws and state constitutional amendments almost useless.
The fact that we are even having this discussion is evidence of how sick the soul of our society has become. Throughout man’s history, it has been understood that marriage, which is a God-created relationship, is the union of a man and a woman, but with our modern medical technologies, we have the ability to surgically mutilate people’s bodies in an effort to encourage them in their delusions—their gender confusion, or gender dysphoria.
But, does sex reassignment surgery help these people or hurt them? Does encouraging people to embrace their transgender self-perception help them, or is it better to encourage them to receive treatment to combat the mental and spiritual disorder of gender dysphoria?
In one of his columns, Walt Heyer relates the startling fact that according to a study of 7000 transgender people living in the United States, 41 percent of them had attempted suicide. 41 percent! This statistic alone should be enough to penetrate the thick heads of leftist politicians, judges and other officials who are hell-bent on mainstreaming the sexual anarchy revolution by lauding it and passing laws in support of it! But, there is more.
In the same column, Walt cites another study that indicates people who have had sex reassignment surgery suffer higher mortality rates, more suicidal behavior, and higher rates of psychiatric morbidity than the general population. A third study he quotes declared,
“There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend.
The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham’s aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.”
Walt concludes his column,
“The objective evidence shows that extreme caution should be used in considering sex change surgery. The Transgender Task Force suggests that discrimination against transgenders is the cause of the high rate of attempted suicide; however, no objective study supports this notion.
Suicide studies show that 90% of attempts are the result of undiagnosed and/or untreated psychiatric and psychological disorders as the real cause of suicide and attempted suicide.
Why then do they claim that only 1% have regret?”
My point in sharing this information in an article about potential skirting of marriage laws by same-sex couples is to illustrate the very dangerous and damaging reality of promoting transgenderism/transsexuality and related disorders. These mental and spiritual disorders are things that should be aggressively discouraged from taking root in mainstream society, not actively promoted by our leaders. People who suffer these afflictions need help in escaping them, not a shove deeper into their painful delusions. Anyone with intellectual honesty knows that it is impossible to change your sex. If you were born a male, you will always be a male, regardless of any hormones administered or surgeries performed; to believe otherwise is to believe a lie.
As for the topic at hand, we have seen that homosexual radicals and other sexual anarchists are willing to go to great lengths to force society to accept their immoral behaviors. They do not hesitate to create situations they can exploit in our judicial system. Litigation is a popular tool the radical Left uses to impose its agenda on our nation. We must understand that marriage protection laws and state constitutional amendments correctly defining marriage are most certainly in the exploitation crosshairs of these radical activists, and even more so if “male” and “female” are not properly defined as being given at conception—or birth, if you will.
We are seeing court cases in several states that seek to give legitimacy to same-sex “marriages” in which one of the partners has had “sex change” procedures. In one recent example, which goes to the very heart of Walt Heyer’s warnings, early last month a federal court judge in Minnesota issued an outrageous ruling which declared that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which correctly defines marriage, does not apply to some transgender “marriages.”
The case was of a man who is a United Parcel Service (UPS) driver who was “married” to another man who had undergone “legal transitioning” to female. This transgender man was able to get an amended birth certificate declaring him to be female, and the UPS driver added him to his union’s insurance policy as his “wife.”
The union insurance fund discovered the man’s “wife” was not female and dropped him from the insurance policy. The case went to court, but the judge ruled against the union insurance fund.
As reported by the American Independent website, the judge stated in his ruling,
“‘The Fund’s role was to ascertain Minnesota law. … It was not the Fund’s role to impose its own definitions of gender and marriage upon its participants. In this case, the Fund ignored all evidence of the State of Minnesota’s view of Plaintiff’s sex and marital status. The Fund’s decision was not only wrong … it was a flagrant violation of its duty under any standard of review.
‘The Fund’s interpretation of Minnesota law was unreasonable and wrong,’ Davis continued. ‘Minnesota law recognizes the Radtkes’ marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman because Minnesota law recognizes Plaintiff’s sex as female. Every piece of evidence related to this Plaintiff that was presented to the Fund supported the conclusion that the State of Minnesota recognized her marriage – from her name change order, to her Goodhue County Court order requiring amendment of her birth certificate, to her marriage license and marriage certificate.’”
This judge’s words are a good example of the mass-delusional thinking that has infected so many in our society. The State of Minnesota “views” this man as a woman, so that makes it right and true, according to the law? This is insanity on steroids.
This is also why Walt Heyer’s warning is so important. It is essential that in writing state constitutional amendments and other defense of marriage laws, that the definition of “male at birth” and “female at birth” be added to preclude transgenders from being granted marriage licenses.
As you can see, even without this language, rogue, leftist judges are already siding against true marriage. Thankfully, in other cases, courts have nullified transgender “marriages.” In these few cases, we have seen judges uphold the definition of marriage, but it is only a matter of time before the sexual anarchist crowd goes full-bore with a courtroom war against true marriage constitutional amendments and marriage laws with their “sex change” arguments.
I hope lawmakers at the federal, state and local levels will take heed of Walt Heyer’s important admonitions. Marriage needs all the defense it can get in the face of the ever-growing darkness of our world.
This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.
Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964