We Support. The LGBTQ+ movement is absurdly attempting to erase basic matters of scientific fact through the conflation of biological sex and fictional “gender identity” constructs (e.g., “transgender,” “nonbinary,” “intersex,” or “two-spirit”). As affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, our “unalienable Rights” cannot be defined apart from the self-evident truth—found in the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God"—that humanity is comprised of unique, but complementary, individual persons born distinctly male or female and created equally in the image of “their Creator.” The logic from radical social theorists, who suppress the obvious and immutable, is quite simple: No “Creator,” no rights. The logic from radical social theorists, who suppress the obvious and immutable, is quite simple: No “Creator,” no rights. Each State therefore has a compelling interest and duty to protect against gross efforts to redefine human rights and reinterpret the Constitution based on false premises, such as “sexual fluidity.”
Chamber: House
Constitutional Vote: Yes
Vote Date: February 7, 2024
H421 provides a legal definition for “gender” that is consistent with a person’s “biological sex.”
The House passed H421 on February 7, 2024, by a vote of 54 to 14. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because the LGBTQ+ movement is absurdly attempting to erase basic matters of scientific fact through the conflation of biological sex and fictional “gender identity” constructs (e.g., “transgender,” “nonbinary,” “intersex,” or “two-spirit”). As affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, our “unalienable Rights” cannot be defined apart from the self-evident truth—found in the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—that humanity is comprised of unique, but complementary, individual persons born distinctly male or female and created equally in the image of “their Creator.” The logic from radical social theorists, who suppress the obvious and immutable, is quite simple: No “Creator,” no rights. Each State therefore has a compelling interest and duty to protect against gross efforts to redefine human rights and reinterpret the Constitution based on false premises, such as “sexual fluidity.”
Learn More