Through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as an associate justice, the Supreme Court’s lean much farther to the right threatens LGBTQ rights.
In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that bans on gay marriage were unconstitutional in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges, yet this right has been threatened in the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing on September 18.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett was nominated on September 26, and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wasted no time in issuing a statement attacking the Obergefell case.
The October 5 statement asserted that the decision made in Obergefell v. Hodges vilified religious adherents in government and that the protection of the right to same-sex marriage infringes upon the right to religious liberty.
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance Barrett on October 22, reported the Associated Press, despite a boycott by Democratic senators over the offense of installing a replacement for Ginsburg so close to the presidential election.
Barrett was confirmed on October 26, reported the Associated Press. Her confirmation could have disastrous consequences for the LGBTQ community.
According to articles by NPR, Barrett said that former Associate Justice Antonio Scalia’s judicial philosophy “is mine, too.” Scalia dissented in the same-sex marriage ruling of 2015.
However, she also stated that if she were confirmed “you would not be getting Justice Scalia. You would be getting Justice Barrett.”
But the future Justice Barrett refused to answer California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s question about whether Barrett agreed with Scalia’s view that the right to same-sex marriage was not covered by the Constitution.
Barrett then said that she had “never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference.” The use of the outdated term “sexual preference” to describe sexual orientation is inherently homophobic, suggesting that sexuality is a preference and can be chosen rather than it being an inherent characteristic.
She later apologized for the use of the phrase, but her past contains many anti-LGBTQ organizations and actions.
Barrett is associated with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal organization made up of Christians to “defend religious freedom.”
ADF has been accused by the Southern Poverty Law Center of supporting the sterilization of European transgender people and the (re)criminalization of gay sex. Although ADF denies these claims, they also deny that they are anti-LGBTQ at all.
On its website, ADF asks the rhetorical question of which society the reader would want to build the future on, choosing between “Marriage” and “The Desires of the Individual.”
The latter has a description stating “in this society, marriage is defined as the emotional union of two or more consenting adults, and the well-being of children and the benefit to society are an afterthought.” This obviously loaded language suggests that LGBTQ+ adults in a consenting relationship are inferior parents compared to the “lifelong union between a man and a woman, placing the needs of others, especially children, first.”
Barrett has been a speaker for the Blackstone Law Fellowship, developed by ADF, around five times.
According to the Associated Press, Barrett also served on the board of Trinity Schools Incorporated, which did not allow same-sex teachers, families or children to teach or attend the schools. Barrett and her family are members of the Catholic organization, the People of Praise, that teaches that homosexuality is a sin. This organization is also affiliated with the Trinity Schools.
Barrett, through her silence and lack of answers about her thoughts on the LGBTQ community and their rights, has chosen the side of homophobia.
And with the rest of her life or until her retirement to revisit Obergefell, Barrett sounds ready to dissent on the decision that will impact millions of lives.
A case discussing discrimination on the basis of being LGBTQ by organizations providing government services will be heard on November 4. The city of Philadelphia found that the agency Catholic Social Services, which is funded by taxpayer dollars, was discriminating against same-sex couples who were planning to foster children.
Many people now wait with bated breath as the Supreme Court takes on Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.