Bill Text: WV HCR95 | 2020 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Establishment Act
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2020-02-17 - To House Judiciary [HCR95 Detail]
Download: West_Virginia-2020-HCR95-Introduced.html
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 95
(By Delegate Butler)
[Introduced February 17, 2020]
To recognize and acknowledge that the State of West Virginia is prohibited from taking direct or symbolic action to respect nonsecular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives or sexual orientation orthodoxy pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article III Section 15 of the West Virginia Constitution.
Whereas, Article III Section 15 of the West Virginia Constitution states, “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever; nor shall any man be enforced, restrained, molested or burthened, in his body or goods, or otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument, to maintain their opinions in matters of religion; and the same shall, in nowise, affect, diminish or enlarge their civil capacities; and the Legislature shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this state, to levy on themselves, or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house for public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry, but it shall be left free for every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support, such private contracts as he shall please;”
Whereas, The United States is a Constitutional Republic that the State of West Virginia is part of;
Whereas, Constitutional law preempts Federal law and State law;
Whereas, The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “[The Government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court held in Everson v. Bd of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment; and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court held in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007) that the Establishment Clause applies to the executive branch, which includes this State’s executive branch; and
Whereas, All religion amounts to is a set of unproven answers to the greater questions like why are we here, what gives us identity, what should we be doing as humans, and what happens after death; and
Whereas, The Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution was never solely designed to prohibit the government from respecting and recognizing the doctrines of institutionalized religions but of noninstitutionalized religions, like Secular Humanism, as well; and
Whereas, The religion of Secular Humanism is also commonly referred to by scholars as postmodern individualistic moral relativism or expressive individualism; and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court found that Secular Humanism is a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment Establishment Clause in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), stating “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 Oklahoma Ethical Society 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 Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia 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 for1961, at 29, 47;”
Whereas, Most of the Federal Courts of appeals have found that Secular Humanism is a religion for the purpose of the First Amendment Establishment Clause in cases such as Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir.1979), Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir.1977), Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981), Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir. 2003), Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec'y Dep 't of Health & Human Servs., 150 F. Supp. 3d 419, 2017 WL3324690 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017), and Wells v. City and County of Denver, 257 F.3d 1132, 1148 (10th Cir. 2001); and
Whereas, The sworn testimonies provided by ex-gays, medical experts, persecuted Christians, and licensed ministers demonstrate that there is no real proof that a gay gene exists, that the idea that sexual orientation is predicated on immutability is not proven, and that sexual orientation is a mythology, dogma, doctrine, ideology, and orthodoxy that is inseparably linked to the religion of Secular Humanism; and
Whereas, The LGBTQ community is organized, full, and has a code by which members may guide their daily lives, making LGBTQ Secular Humanism a religion in view of the definition of what constitutes a religion provided by the Court in Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec'y Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 150 F. Supp. 3d 419, (3rd Cir. Aug. 4, 2017); and
Whereas, Instead of having a cross, the ten commandments, or the star and crescent, the LGBTQ Secular Humanist church has the rainbow-colored flag to symbolize their religious beliefs, practices, and values, which at least one person in every District believes is offensive, implausible, and objectionable; and
Whereas, When a person says that “they were born with a gay gene,” that they were “born in the wrong body,” or that they “came out of an invisible closet and were baptized homosexual,” they are making a series of unproven faith-based naked assertions that are implicitly religious and cannot be used as the basis for law or policy because the Establishment Clause preempts such action from being legally recognized, endorsed, or respected by government; and
Whereas, Regardless of political affiliation, all members of the general assembly and all executive and judicial officers bound by oath to put their own political and religious beliefs aside and to comply with their duty to honor their oath of office pursuant to Article VI to uphold the United States Constitution and to, therefore, immediately stop creating, respecting, and enforcing policies that condone the plausibility of self-asserted sex-based identity narratives and sexual orientation orthodoxy because all of those policies fail all three prongs of the Lemon Test established by the United States Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) for:
(1) Constituting nonsecular shams;
(2) Cultivating indefensible legal weapons against nonobservers of the religion of Secular Humanism; and
(3) Serving to excessively entangle the government with the religion of Secular Humanism; and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) and Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 218 (1997) found that if government action fails one prong of the Lemon Test, it is unconstitutional, and the evidence shows that the enforcement and creation of policies that respect nonsecular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives or sexual orientation ideology fail at least one prong of Lemon, if not all three; and
Whereas, The decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) and United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) were unequivocally part of an unprincipled ploy, political power play, and nonsecular sham that has not created a land rush on gay marriage and tolerance but has cultivated a land rush on Christian persecution and a land rush for devout Secular Humanists to infiltrate public elementary schools and public libraries with the sole purpose of indoctrinating minors with the sexualized religion of Secular Humanism with the government’s stamp of approval, demonstration that those decisions themselves where nonsecular shams that constitutes government action that fails the prongs of the Lemon Test; and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592 (1992) found that there are “heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools [and in public libraries],” while also holding in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 583 (1987) that the government “should be particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in the public-school and [public library] context,” when minors are subjected to religious indoctrination with the perception of the government’s stamp of approval, and the State of West Virginia joins the high court in being vigilant in regards to those heightened concerns; and
Whereas, Nonsecular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, having nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment; and
Whereas, Attempts to shoehorn sexual orientation or nonsecular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives that are questionably real, moral or plausible into a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection or Substantive Due Process narrative by any state actor is a per se act of Constitutional, political and governmental malpractice; and
Whereas, The Supreme Court’s position in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) and Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993) emphasized that the legislative branch must serve as a check on the Judicial and executive branch, and this state has a duty owed pursuant to Article VI to hold the other branches of government, whether they be state or federal, accountable; and
Whereas, The federal courts have held in cases like Holloman v. Harland, 3 70 F.3 1252 (11th Cir. 2004) that neither emotional appeals nor sincerity of belief can be used to usurp the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; and
Whereas, The decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) and United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) hijacked the Fourteenth Amendment and were based solely on a series of emotional appeals as a way to get around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and constitute one of the greatest shams since the inception of American jurisprudence; and
Whereas, The government’s endorsement and entanglement with LGBTQ and transgender ideology has been based purely on emotion in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, generating a per se constitutional crisis; and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court held in Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) and in St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38 (1936) that “Stare Decisis is at its weakest when the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution because its decisions can be altered only by constitutional amendment or by overruling prior decisions;” and
Whereas, The decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) and United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) exclusively involved constitutional interpretation in five to four splits that caused dissenting justices to make unprecedented statements such as “just who do we think we are” and “I write separately to call attention to this court’s threat to American Democracy;” and
Whereas, Enacting the Establishment Act will ultimately serve to restore constitutional order by overruling Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) and United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) through overcoming stare decisis by relying on a superior jurisprudence acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. 543 U.S. 157 (2004) that “[constitutional] questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to [the] attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents;” and
Whereas, First Amendment Establishment Clause questions were lurking in the shadows of Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) and United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) but were neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, which means that both of those Supreme Court decisions do not constitute binding precedent and must immediately be disregarded by this state in accordance with the Legislature and Governor’s continuing duties to comply with their oath of office pursuant to Article VI to uphold the Constitution of the United States no matter whom it offends, regardless of political or religious affiliation, and despite any emotional objections; and
Whereas, The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion];” and
Whereas, Enacting the Establishment Act clarifies that the original underlying legal basis behind the marriage bans that were struck down by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) that limited legally recognized marriage to a man and a woman was the First Amendment Establishment Clause and that the second legal basis for the original marriage bans was the state’s narrowly tailored compelling interest to uphold contemporary community standards of decency and discourage licentiousness, constituting issues that were lurking in the shadows but never addressed in Obergefell by the defendants, which means that Stare Decisis does not spare Obergefell from being ignored, disregarded, and overturned; and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the states have a compelling interest to uphold community standards of decency, to discourage licentiousness, and to enact policies that stop attempts to justify practices that are inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state; and
Whereas, The court in Schlegel v. United States, 416 F. 2d 1372, 1378 (Ct. Cl. 1969) held that “any schoolboy knows that a homosexual act is immoral, indecent, lewd and obscene. Adult persons are even more conscious that this is true;” and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court held in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, (1968) and Mishkin v. State of New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966) that “to simply adjust the definition of obscenity to social realities has always failed to be persuasive before the courts of the United States” and such adjustments fail to be persuasive to the State of West Virginia; and
Whereas, While Secular Humanism is a protected religion pursuant to the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, it is a disfavored religion insofar that it often involves obscene speech that erodes contemporary community standards of decency, desensitize, divides, dehumanize, depersonalize, and has been shown to increases suicide rates; and
Whereas, In the wake of the government’s endorsement of LGBTQ ideology following the decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) and United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), it is evident that people who are “intolerant” of “intolerant people” are “intolerant,” people who are “judgmental” against “judgmental people” are “judgmental,” and people who are “dogmatic” about not “being dogmatic” are “dogmatic;” and
Whereas, When a person gets legally married, they are entitled to a constellation of benefits that flow out of the state’s general fund at the expense of the taxpayers; and
Whereas, There are taxpayers in every voting district who believe that homosexuality, zoophilia, polygamy, transgenderism, and other nonsecular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives and sexual orientation ideology and the practices associated with them are immoral, and those taxpayers believe that to enable acts of immorality is itself an act of immorality, and therefore, this state must be prohibited from appropriating any public funds that promote, condone, endorse, or advance nonsecular sex-based identity narratives or sexual orientation ideology because such state action coercively causes those taxpayers to violate their own conscience by the simple act of paying taxes, making such governmental action an evil that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was designed to prohibit; and
Whereas, The state has a compelling interest and duty owed pursuant to Article VI to zealously defend the integrity of the Fourteenth Amendment and to prevent it from being hijacked to accomplish non-secular agendas by the Federal judicial branch; and
Whereas, The aim of the LGBTQ Secular Humanist church’s push to entangle the government with their religious beliefs is “dominance,” not “tolerance,” and the objection to this unconstitutional entanglement is based on “secular biology,” not “malicious bigotry,” and a desire to restore the rule of law and the Supremacy of the United States Constitution for the welfare of our Constitutional Republic; and
Whereas, The State of West Virginia has a compelling interest to untwist intellectual dishonesty perpetrated by the judicial branch and a duty to defend the integrity of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by enacting the Establishment Act to ultimately overrule the Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) and by showing that the Obergefell decision was itself a nonsecular sham for purposes of prong I of Lemon because if marriage really was an “existing right/individual right” (according to the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)) and a “fundamental right” (according to the Supreme Court in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978)) based on a “personal choice” (according to the Supreme Court in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 63940 (1974)) for self-identified homosexuals pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process Clauses as the Supreme Court pretended in Obergefell, then marriage must be an existing right, individual right and fundamental right based on the personal choice for self-identified polygamists, zoophiles and objectophiles based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process Clauses under the Obergefell holding as well, but since that is not true, then the entire effort to have the government endorse nonsecular of LGBTQ Secular Humanist ideology is a nonsecular sham that has at all times been in perpetual violation of the Establishment Clause; and
Whereas, The Supreme Court resolved in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976) that there is no such thing as a partial civil rights movement, when it found that even nonobvious components of a suspect class are entitled to civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; and
Whereas, If sexual orientation really was a suspect class for the purpose of the Fourteen Amendment, then all individuals in the nonobvious suspect classes would be entitled to civil rights, but they are not because sexual orientation is an unproven religious doctrine that is inseparably linked to the religion of Secular Humanism and its recognition by government is nothing more than a nonsecular sham that divides us; and
Whereas, The seven to two decision reached by the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018), following Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) decision unequivocally demonstrates that self-identified homosexuals or transgenders are not a people group for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, like people of color are, which means that the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) and United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) were merely tampering with the Fourteenth Amendment in a manner that undermines the sovereignty of the United States Constitution, which obligates this state to cure an overt constitutional crisis by enacting the Establishment Act to restore constitutional order to prevent a religious/cultural civil war; and
Whereas, This state has a compelling interest and duty to defend the race-based civil rights movement that was proven to be predicated on the Fourteenth Amendment based on the reasonable observer standard, whereas it has not been proven that the plight of self-identified homosexuals was based on genetics or immutability, which means that for any state actor to equate those two plights as if they are equal has engaged in an act of racial animus in kind that manages to be racially, sexually and emotionally exploitative and intellectually dishonest; and
Whereas, There are no ex-blacks, but there are thousands of ex-gays, who abandoned nonsecular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives and adopted one that accords with self-evident, secular, biological design; and
Whereas, People of color at one point in this country had to ride on the back of the bus, walk to school, and drink from inferior water fountains for reasons that were predicated on immutable traits, and for any state actor to equate the race-based civil rights plight to the plight of self-identified homosexuals in order to get around the Establishment Clause has engaged in a per se act of racial animus that is deeply offensive to many people of color in the State of West Virginia; and
Whereas, Nonsecular marriages have never been a part of American tradition and heritage and have nothing to do with the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
Whereas, The state is prohibited under the First Amendment Establishment Clause and Article III Section 15 of the West Virginia Constitution from recognizing homosexuals, but it does recognize the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and Article III Section 15 of the West Virginia Constitution right for an individual to self-identify as a homosexual, polygamist, zoophile, objectophile, etc.; and
Whereas, Because the United States Supreme Court found in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) that Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, any person within this state’s jurisdiction can freely form any self-asserted sex-based identity narrative with impunity as permitted by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment no matter how perceptively morally repugnant or offensive, and they can live in accordance with those beliefs as long as the practices do not violate existing state or federal laws because the freedom of religion is not absolute; and
Whereas, In view of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, this state does not object to the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) which overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), which was a decision that had the effect of overruling state policies that made it illegal for two consenting adults of the same sex to privately engage in sexual acts; and
Whereas, The state government is not a church nor is it a redeemer, and the government is barred from allowing devout Secular Humanist to enshrine their ideology through state action in the hopes that it will make them feel less ashamed and inadequate about engaging in faith-based practices that naturally cultivate feelings of shame and inadequacy for going against the way that we are and the way that things are from the reasonable observer standpoint; and
Whereas, The Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015) was correct in finding that the United States Constitution is not silent as to how the states must legally define marriage - the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment only allows the state to legally recognize marriage between a man and a woman because it is the only secular form; and
Whereas, Civilizations for millennia have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, making it the only form of secular marriage that the government is allowed to legally recognize and respect; and
Whereas, Marriage between a man and a woman arose out of the nature of things, and marriage between a man and a woman is natural, neutral, and noncontroversial, unlike non-secular marriages that do not involve a man and a woman and are deeply controversial and divisive; and
Whereas, Marriages policies that endorse marriage between a man and a woman are secular in nature for purposes of the Establishment Clause insofar as the policies accomplish their purpose, fulfill a compelling state interest, are predicated on self-evident truth, and do not put religion over nonreligion in their making and in their enforcement, unlike nonsecular marriage policies; and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) was not necessarily correct in declaring that “America is a Christian Nation” and the United States Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) was not correct in implying that America is a Secular Humanist Nation, when it enshrined the modern cultural mindset by declaring that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe;” and
Whereas, The State of West Virginia is at best part of an unofficial Christian Nation insofar as the laws of the United States must be predicated on self-evident, neutral, natural, morality, which only happens to parallel the doctrine of some institutionalized religions, like Christianity, by coincidence in the same way that parts of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights do, yet there will never be a mandate that requires citizens to accept Christianity, Secular Humanism, or any other religion by this state because the Establishment Clause prohibits such mandates and the Free Exercise Clause permits individuals the fundamental right to worship what they want without government interference; therefore, be it
Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That The Legislature recognizes that Secular Humanism is a religion for the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article III Section 15 of the West Virginia Constitution and that it is a religion that has limited protections under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article III Section 15 of the West Virginia Constitution because it tends to erode community standards of decency, promote licentiousness, and attempt to justify practices that are inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state; and
Further Resolved, Pursuant to the First Amendment Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, Article III Section 15 of the West Virginia Constitution, and the state’s compelling interest to uphold contemporary community standards of decency, an agent of the state shall not directly or symbolically create or enforce policies that respect or recognize non-secular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives or sexual orientation orthodoxy, which means that agent of the state shall not:
(1) Issue or recognize a marriage license that does not involve a secular marriage.
(2) Appropriate, distribute, or award public funds in a manner that directly or indirectly respects, promotes or endorses the plausibility of nonsecular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives, sexual orientation orthodoxy, or nonsecular marriage ideology;
(3) Appropriate, distribute or award a grant of public funds to cover the cost of sex reassignment surgery.
(4) Prohibit or unduly restrict conversion therapy;
(5) Display a flag that promotes nonsecular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives or sexual orientation orthodoxy in a manner that would be unconstitutional for the same state actor to display a flag that respects or promotes the edicts of an institutionalized religion;
(6) Promote the use of puberty blockers, especially to minors;
(7) Permit a person who was born as a biological male to change their gender to female on their birth certificate, driver’s license, or any other official government form;
(8) Permit a person who was born as a biological female to change their gender to male on their birth certificate, driver’s license, or any other official government form;
(9) Assign or house an inmate who was born as a biological male in a ward or cell designated for inmates who were born as biological females;
(10) Assign or house an inmate who was born as a biological female in a ward or cell designated for inmates who were born as biological males; or
(11) Mandate pronoun changes in an effort to show respect to sexual orientation orthodoxy; and, be it
Further Resolved, That pursuant to the First Amendment Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, Article III Section 15 of the West Virginia Constitution, and the state’s compelling interest to discourage licentiousness, under the heightened standard to protect children from state-sponsored indoctrination, a public school and its agent shall not create or enforce policies that respect or recognize nonsecular self-asserted sex-based identity narratives or sexual orientation orthodoxy, which means that a public school and its agent shall not:
(1) Expose students to curriculum concerning nonsecular self-assertedsex-based identity ideology or sexual orientation orthodoxy unless the programming is part of a sex-education program and only after a student’s parents have:
(A) Intentionally opted their child into participating in the programming in writing;
(B) Received a warning from the school or department of education that the messaging could expose their child to licentiousness and one particular religious worldview.
(2) Permit a student was born as a biological male to participate in sports designated for biological females;
(3) Permit a student was born as a biological female to participate in sports designated for biological females;
(4) Permit a person who was born as a biological male to enter or use a locker room or restroom designated for biological females;
(5) Permit a person who was born as a biological female to enter or use a locker room or restroom designated for biological males;
(6) Mandate pronoun changes in an effort to show respect to doctrines of Secular Humanism; or
(7) Host or sponsor Drag Queen Story Time for children or similar programming; and, be it
Further Resolved, That pursuant to the First Amendment Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, Article III Section 15 of the West Virginia Constitution, and the state’s compelling interest to discourage licentiousness, under the heightened standard to protect children from state-sponsored indoctrination, a public library and its agents shall not host, sponsor, promote or condone Drag Queen Storytime for children or similar programming; and, be it
Further Resolved, Policies that respect and endorse a secular marriage between a man and a woman shall continue to be enforced, recognized and respected and agents of the state shall only issue and recognize secular marriage licenses because of the policies:
(1) Are natural, neutral, noncontroversial and secular in nature;
(2) Fulfill their actual purpose;
(3) Fulfill a narrowly tailored compelling state interest by upholding community standards of decency; and
(4) Do not:
(A) Violate the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of West Virginia;
(B) Fail the Lemon Test;
(C) Promote licentiousness;
(D) Attempt to justify practices that are inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state;
(E) Put religion over nonreligion; or
(F) Constitute a nonsecular sham, calculated ploy, power grab, or political power play.
Further Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates shall forward a copy of this resolution to the Governor and the United States Congress.
