Barrett Signals Her Anti-LGBT Views as She Dodges Answering Questions

Long time readers of this blog know that the far right enemies of LGBT equality under the law, including the right to marry, have long claimed that sexual orientation is a choice or, stated differently, gays chose same sex love interests as a matter of preference. The goal, of course, is to deny LGBT rights and bar non-discriminations protections on the basis that since sexual orientation is a choice, it is not a protected or immutable condition.  Ones hears this language constantly from anti-gay hate groups and right wing religious extremists.  One also heard it today from the lips of Der Trumpenfuhrer's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett as she sought to evade direct questions on whether or not she supports the view of Justices Thomas (the Court's mental midget) and Alito that the Court's marriage equality ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges should be overruled.  She also refused to disavow her past involvement with anti-gay hate groups. What's perhaps most ironic - or perverse depending on one's view - is that religious belief, which Barrett doesn't want challenged, is 100% choice and preference, unlike sexual orientation which science and medical experts confirm is not a choice. Here are highlights from a piece in the Washington Blade that looks at Barret's dog whistle to religious extremists that she's one of them:

[Senator Dianne] Feinstein, however, wasn’t satisfied with that answer, calling marriage rights for same-sex couples “a fundamental point for large numbers of people, I think, in this country.”

“You identify yourself with a justice that you like him [Antonin Scalia] would be a consistent vote to roll back hard fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community,” Feinstein said. “And what I was hoping you would say is that this would be a point of difference where those freedoms would be respected and you haven’t said that.”

Barrett responded to Feinstein’s concerns by insisting she “has no agenda,” then went on to disavow discrimination on the basis of “sexual preference.”

“I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference, and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference,” Barrett said. “Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent.”

The term sexual preference is considered inappropriate — and offensive — to describe whether or not a person identifies as LGBTQ because it implies being LGBTQ is choice. Instead, the standard terms are sexual orientation and gender identity (and in some circles, the term sexual identity is emerging as a broader term to encompass all aspects of the LGBTQ community).

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, criticized Barrett in a statement for using the term “sexual preference,” crediting such terminology with the prevalence of widely discredited conversion therapy.

“When Amy Coney Barrett used the term ’sexual preference’ in her testimony before the Senate today, she perpetuated the dangerous and false stereotype that being LGBTQ is not a fundamental aspect of identity, but a mere ’preference,’” Minter said. “This is why so many people, including many parents who send their children to conversion therapy, think being LGBTQ is a choice. As judges know, language matters.”

Upbraiding Barrett on the committee for use of the term sexual preference was Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), who said that was “offensive and outdated” language and “used by anti LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.”

“It is not,” Hirono continued. “Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity. That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority’s opinion in Obergefell, which by the way Scalia did not agree with. So, if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a preference, as you noted, then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you would uphold their constitutional right to marry.”

The prospect of Barrett’s confirmation leading to the Supreme Court reversing Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling granting full rights marriage rights to same-sex couples, has emerged as a spectre amid concerns she’d move the court further to the right and an unexpected statement from U.S. Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas last week declaring war on the decision.

Leahy also brought up Barrett admitting to having taken a speaking fees to address the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, which is a project of the anti-LGBTQ Alliance Defending Freedom, asking her if she was familiar with the law firm’s filings in support of keeping same-sex relations criminalized in the United States, and recriminalizing them abroad.

“They celebrated when India restored a law punishing sodomy with 10 years in prison,” Leahy said. “Now I don’t — Whether you believe being gay is right or wrong is irrelevant to me, but my concern is you worked with an organization working to criminalize people for loving a person that they’re in love with. So, that’s what worries me.”

Barrett, however, said her experience with Blackstone “was a wonderful one,” saying it gathers “the best and brightest Christian law students from around — law students from around the country,” making a notable correction to describe the correction in her response.

I'm sorry but she's an extremist despite her attractive appearance. Further galling me is the fact that on  the same day Barrett danced around her hostility to my civil rights, the husband and I made a quarterly federal tax payment that was well over ten times what Trump paid in all of 2016 (and that doesn't include any of my significant W-2 withholding).  Something is VERY wrong with America's tax code.