Why the Gays Should Care about the Ten Commandments (or, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about the Summums, but were Afraid to Ask)
It's 60 years ago all over again; the Supreme Court is entertaining a case on the Ten Commandments. But this time, it's funner!
The 10th Circuit Court found that a town in Utah must accept and display (on public land that was ) a donation by a non-profit religious group, because that land already displays a donated Ten Commandments, and because . (As well, that the Ten Commandments represented "the private speech of the original donor"—not government speech.)
This is in conflict with other circuit courts and so here we go, with : The Supreme Court extended the 45-day deadline for the city of Pleasant Grove to file their brief on the merits until today, June 16. The Summums have a bit longer.
At question before the Supreme Court—rather unbelievably—is even whether a municipal park is actually a public forum.
The Johnny Appleseeds of these Ten Commandments have ended up in Court again and again. In Nebraska, and in Texas, . The Texas case () ended up in the Supreme Court, along with McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky.Both cases considered the context of the Commandments display—and because of that, had opposite outcomes.
So, our friends the Summums. If Summum were based in California or New York, we'd probably think the outfit was a practical joke, cooked up to challenge the (equally wacky-seeming) holdings of most religions. ("So wait, Father—then you eat the body of Christ?") But these strangest of our bedfellows seem kind of sweet.
The Summums, who organized themselves into a small religion in 1975, seem to believe that the United States was founded by Freemason-Kabbalists; they are dualists,big fans of gender; also they believe that the Jews couldn't understand what Moses was saying with his laws from God so then he went away and made some easy "Ten Commandment" things so they could get it. (Well it wasn't a very literate or conceptually-minded time.) That is because, they say, the first things Moses came down the mountain with were and esoteric!
The Summums are into meditation and believe in the Big Bang. Also, they are really into mummification, which is awesome. They have what they call Thanatogeneticists—Did Nathaniel West borrow some ideas for "Miss Lonelyhearts" from some proto-Summums?—standing by who are even ready to mummify your pets.
What does this have to do with the gays? (One must always ask that for the gays, who have become more and more single-issue in their legal politics. If it's not gay marriage, does a gay care?)
For one thing, dear gays, control over one's body and therefore sex life has much to do with the separation of religion from law. (Surely we all remember sodomy laws?) It's perfectly fine, if a little strange, for religions to forbid activities and arrangements between their people. That's a consensual contract between believer and church. But: not so much okay for the government to do so.
The insertion of the Ten Commandments by Christian believers into public places—and public places are de facto not-Christian places, whether or not they are "public fora"—suggest clearly that they'd like to have their rules have a relation to public conduct. (Like any billboard, really! Altria wants you to eat Kraft Mac 'N' Cheese; these Christians want you to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.)
This promotion of their ten rules suggests that they'd like them to perhaps have the force of social law. This might be of concern to believer and unbeliever, gay and straight alike! The everyday act of adultery, after all—that's Commandment 7 for the Jews and the Anglicans but Commandment 6 for the Roman Catholics—is still punishable by a prison sentence in at least one state.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.