Trans Ideology Religion Custody AB957

Trans Ideology Religion Custody AB957

Trans ideology is a religion

Religion is defined as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.”

Transgender ideology, like all ideological systems, is built upon attaining certain values, beliefs, and guiding principles.

Core Beliefs

The core beliefs of transgender ideology involve the acceptance of gender identity as a protected class, as well as the determination of an individual’s own gender identity, without regard to their biological sex.

These beliefs are held firm, regardless of personal feelings or scientific evidence.

Additionally, transgender ideology promotes a few key behaviors such as transitioning to one’s desired gender, identifying as non-binary or gender nonconforming, and advocating for legislative protection of gender identity expression.

These behaviors are more akin to religious practices than laws of science, further illustrating how transgender ideology is a religion.

Freedom of Religion

Everyone in the United States has freedom of religion under the 1st and 14th Amendments.

No government, federal or state, can FORCE you to believe or not believe a certain religion, or sets of beliefs.

First Amendment and Religion

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The 1st Amendment protects the right to practice any religion, as long as there isn’t an overriding “compelling” governmental interest.

Fourteenth Amendment and Religion

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The 14th Amendment extends protection of religious liberty to State laws.

How is Transgenderism a Religion?

Although the Supreme Court has yet to come up with a hardline rule for the “definition of religion”, Federal District courts have held that the threshold is very low, see U.S. v. Meyers _ Cases _ Wyoming, 906 F. Supp. 1494, 1499 (D. Wyo. 1995)

The U.S. v. Meyers courts observed under the First Amendment, “if there is any doubt about whether a particular set of beliefs constitutes a religion, the Court will err on the side of freedom and find that the beliefs are a religion . . . [because the country’s] founders were animated in large part by a desire for religious liberty”), aff’d, 95 F.3d 1475, 1482-83 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 887, 887 (1990) (explaining in Free Exercise Clause case that “[r]epeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim”).

Transgender Support Groups Also Label Transideology A Religion

Certainly,  the Pacific School of Religion deems it as such.

The CLGS Transgender Religious Roundtable frames its work with two core values:

1. Transgender identity is a spiritual journey of revealing our true selves, which may involve medical and psychological intervention, and is not a defect or a disorder.

2. Religious education about transgender and cisgender (non-trans) experience can heal what is broken about enforced gender normativity in our religious institutions and, in turn, heal what is broken in our religious communities for queer people of faith.

Religion Is Not Limited to Theistic Beliefs

Some have argued that unless the beliefs relate to the existence of God, it’s not a religion.

However, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court disagreed with such a narrow definition, noting secular humanism can be a religion.  Justice Black in footnote 11 noted,

“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Soc. v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325—327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120—138, 254—313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.”

In Employment Settings, Religion is Broadly Defined

Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief,” not just practices that are mandated or prohibited by a tenet of the individual’s faith.[18]

Religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others.[19]

Further, a person’s religious beliefs “need not be confined in either source or content to traditional or parochial concepts of religion.”[20]

A belief is “religious” for Title VII purposes if it is “religious” in the person’s “own scheme of things,” i.e., it is a “sincere and meaningful” belief that “occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by . . . God.”[21]

The Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not a court’s role to determine the reasonableness of an individual’s religious beliefs, and that “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.”[22]

An employee’s belief, observance, or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief, observance, or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it.[23]

Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”[24]

Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious,[25] beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”[26]

Courts have looked for certain features to determine if an individual’s beliefs can be considered religious. As one court explained: “‘First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.’”[27]

Transgenderism: A State-Sponsored Religion?

In my research, I came across a thorough and insightful article written by Dr. Andre Van Mol.

Dr. Van Mol, MD is a board-certified family physician in private practice. He is the co-chair of the American College of Pediatricians’ Committee on Adolescent Sexuality.

Religion or Not, Government CANNOT Push Beliefs

As explained above, government cannot push beliefs on people.  They cannot force you to accept or not accept transideology.

The Supreme Court created a 3-prong test to determine if promoting a religious belief is constitutional.

This test is found in Lemon v. Kurtzman __ 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

Lemon v. Kurtzman*

Under the “Lemon” test, government can promote or assist religion only if  ALL 3 of these elements are met.

(1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular,

(2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and

(3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

• Lemon test is dead, per Kennedy-v-Bremerton-School-District-2022-06-27-SCOTUS-Opinion ruling.

AB 957 Fails the Lemon Test

The whole notion of “gender affirmation” is dependent on a set of beliefs currently accepted by a group of people.

Transgender Ideology is Not Secular

California adding “gender affirmation” as a factor to be considered in the “health, safety, and welfare” of children promotes the transgender belief system.

Thus, the first prong, the primary purpose is NOT met.  It is not secular.

AB 957 Promotes Trans Ideology

Creating a basis for awarding custody on the basis of beliefs promotes trans ideology, thus failing the second prong.

Excessive Entanglement Between Transgenderism and California

It is unconstitutional for California to promote a set of beliefs on all families.  This constitutes excessive entanglement, and fails the third prong.

Religion and Custody Cases

Family courts do not typically award custody based on religion.

To do so would be a violation of the 1st and 14th Amendment.  Granting custody based on certain religions absolutely violates the both the establishment and free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.

AB 957 May Have Good Intentions, But is Unconstitutional

Asm Lori Wilson, who has a transgender son, authored this Bill, no doubt to protect her son.  I can understand her compassion and I would probably have done the same.

However, AB 957 is unconstitutional and should not be passed.