The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay in a case involving a transgender teen who is suing his school board for the right to use the boys’ bathroom at his Virginia high school, a move that halts a court order that would have allowed the student to use the bathroom of his choice when the school year begins.
Gavin Grimm, 17, sued the school board in Gloucester County, Va., last year after it passed a policy requiring students to use bathrooms corresponding with their “biological sex,” resulting in him being barred from the boys’ bathroom.
One of the really odd things about out shifting moral ground is how quickly the left produces bigots. A few years ago, most every politician in America including the president proclaimed that marriage was between a man and a woman. Bill Clinton signed a law to that effect. Now, if you disagree with gay marriage, you are a bigot.
We are on a similar trajectory with bathroom issues. If you don’t believe that transgender children should go to the bathroom in the lavatory which matches their chosen gender, then you are the worst bigot of all. You might as well be the 21st century version of Bull Connor, waving your hose around…
OK, bad comparison.
This case has ping-ponged back and forth, with the latest decision by a lower court in theory allowing the 17 year old to go in the boys room. The school district wants time to file an appeal, and 5 Supreme Court justices agreed to stay the previous decision, setting up a future hearing in the high court.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he was joining the conservative justices in granting the stay as a “courtesy” that would preserve the status quo while considering the school board’s request to review the case. It takes only four justices to accept a case, but Breyer’s statement indicated he should not be considered the necessary fifth vote to overturn the appeals court. The three other liberal justices said they would not have issued the stay.
The federal government has taken the position that bathrooms should be used by transgender students according to their preference. 12 states disagree. Those twelve states are not acting in a bigoted or discriminatory way. They are just standing up for (or sitting down for) their beliefs.
My point is, different judges and lawmakers are weighing the facts and coming to different conclusions. None of the judges, legislatures or governors need to be considered bigots. At each step, honest people disagree with each other.
In America, we used to do this without rancor.