Let’s say ‘NO’ to a bad apple

Bishop Edward B. Scharfenberger

Gaslighting, a form of psychological abuse, is taking on almost apocalyptic dimensions these days, leading some to question their own memory, perception and sanity — even reality itself. “All that glitters is not gold” is a common aphorism traceable to Chaucer, while J.R.R. Tolkien of more recent renown advises that all that is gold does not glitter. Something that seems too good to be true quite often is not. This works both ways. Our most terrifying nightmares and most promising ventures can each prove but chimeras. 

Even nature adapts subtle lures to entrap, like carnivorous plants and camouflaged snakes. The serpentine ancient Deceiver himself offers fruit to tempt our first parents, like a shiny red apple, which leads them on a path disruptive of the three relationships constitutive of their humanity: with God, one another and nature itself. No longer persons living in the image of their Creator in a harmony of triune unity, they redefine themselves as lone individuals by self-deification, which culminates at Babel, the collapse of their tower of pride. Lost there is even the ability to find a common language. Sound familiar? All we need to know of what is going on today may be found in the first 11 chapters of Genesis!

Back to that apple. Reminds me of an old joke. What’s worse than finding a worm in an apple? Yep, you guessed it. Half a worm! We may forget to notice the wormhole and bite right into the alluring fruit before examining and considering the consequences of a slick hustle. We repeat our first parents’ error. Didn’t our mothers warn, “look before you leap?”

This election cycle is another go-round at the age-old game of bait-and-switch. The ancient Deceiver crouches at the door of humanity, seizing every chance to humiliate us and stick the finger in God’s face, shaming the beloved creation humanity is, made like none other in the divine image (cf. Gn 4:7). While one might infer that I am signaling certain candidates for office, my reference is not political but to a proposal potentially far more mischievous.

You may be aware that on the 2024 New York State ballot is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” as the bishops of New York State have aptly termed it, packaged in the glib language of an “Equal Rights Amendment,” the so-called Proposal 1, or “Prop 1” for short. Be not misled by the seductive label on this apple. The noble equality of human beings, which we all cherish, believers or not, is not the “equality” on which proponents of Prop 1 seem obsessed.

Many of my colleagues, not only brother bishops, but others of good conscience, laity and clergy, religious and secular, have written eloquently and boldly about the serious dangers to our First Amendment freedoms which Prop 1 poses. Read it and form your own conclusions. You do not need to be religious to see the worms in this time bomb.

In the sweeping language of Prop 1, “age” becomes a protected class among the so-called “equal rights.” Rights of parents (never mentioned) could soon be stripped away. Based on its provisions, minor children could sue their parents. Courts may decide parents have no authority over treatments and surgeries like the mutilation or amputation of breasts and genitalia (under the name of “gender affirmation”), now banned among minors in most European countries, after horrific experiences. The relationship between children and parents is a fundamental and universal pillar of family life in all civilized societies, interference with which, most concur, should be beyond the competence of governments. 

Putting on my lawyer’s cap, proponents argue that Prop 1 changes no laws and, therefore, favors no special interests by altering or solidifying already existing rights. Prop 1, however, is a constitutional amendment. This is such a big deal because it adds new classes of rights, many ill-defined, which many legal analysts fear would wreak chaos upon existing civil rights structures. Inevitably, conflict will lead to legal strife between protected classes, newly minted, inciting costly litigation inflation. Courts in turn, not legislators, would have to interpret the vague language of the amendment, creating new hierarchies of rights. In the wake of Prop 1, not only could court battles checkmate the guidance and consent of parents over their kids’ physical and emotional health, but also that of teachers accused of infringing on children’s “rights” – even if in good faith all they try is to inform parents. 

The language of Prop 1 is ambiguous on terms such as “gender identity” and “gender expression.” By glaring omission, it does not regard biology — to wit, the scientific significance of the body’s XX or XY chromosomal map — as relevant to the admission of any protected class to a bathroom, a locker room or a sports team designated or delineated by biological sex (that is, male/female, boys/girls, men/

women). In other words, denying access to anyone based on biological sex could be judged unconstitutional! So, too, the refusal to employ or keep someone who presented in a manner inconsistent with the ethical or religious beliefs and behavior on sexuality within the institution of employ.

Such an amendment to the Constitution would make it impossible to limit the severity of already existing laws so as to mitigate the total lack of equal protection for preborn children — an unprotected class — should the hearts and minds of New Yorkers ever moderate toward legally protecting a child growing in the womb. New York law admits no equality or even recognition of such rights, not even of the humanity of the unborn as beings of moral worth.

It may console some to learn that many organizations dedicated to the welfare of children and social stability — like the Autism Action Network — are fighting it, not fooled by this bad apple. Alarming narratives of the consequences of like measures in other states are emerging. All of us must decide for ourselves how to vote. None should walk into a polling place blindly, however, especially once on notice of this clear and present danger to our children, families and community. In conscience, I must urge you to consider the repercussions of betting on this Trojan horse. May it not be said one was never warned. We need not agree on all things, but voting “NO” on this bad apple should sure be one of them.