To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
During testimony on Tuesday, Barrett falsely claimed to have "never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference," a statement which drew condemnation for its untruthfulness and for its use of an offensive term implying that being LGBTQ is a choice. (Photo: Erin Schaff/Getty Images)
LGBTQ people and their allies condemned Judge Amy Coney Barrett during the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings Tuesday after the nominee falsely claimed she never discriminated against LGBTQ people, implied that their sexual orientation is a choice, and described her experience with an anti-gay hate group as "wonderful."
LGBTQ rights loomed large during the second day of Barrett's contentious Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation. President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nominee refused to say whether or not she would vote to roll back hard-fought civil rights while repeatedly dodging questions from Democrats on the committee about both her personal views on gay rights and how she might rule on the issue.
"My identity is not a preference or a choice, and that you don't know that proves you can't be trusted to determine our community's future."
--Alphonso David, Human Rights Campaign
While Supreme Court nominees routinely invoke the principle of "judicial canon" to avoid disclosing their beliefs on issues and cases, Barrett recently said she espouses the same judicial philosophy as the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who routinely ruled against civil rights for LGBTQ people, in cases ranging from the overturned Texas sodomy ban to the landmark 2015 marriage equality case Obergefell v. Hodges.
When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on her jurisprudential affinity for Scalia--for whom she clerked--Barrett replied that "you would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett."
"I have no agenda and 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 replied to questioning about Obergefell.
However, civil rights advocates were quick to remind the world that she had indeed discriminated against LGBTQ people. She did so while serving on the board of trustees of Trinity Schools Incorporated, a network of private Christian schools in Indiana which during her tenure enacted a policy prohibiting students with unmarried parents. As same-sex marriage was illegal in the state at the time, the policy effectively discriminated against LGBTQ people.
Furthermore, Barrett's use of the term "sexual preference" raised eyebrows and ire, as the word "preference" implies that sexual orientation is something LGBTQ people can control at will. Feinstein--a former San Francisco mayor who represents the state with the nation's largest LGBTQ population--said nothing about Barrett's use of the offensive term. Others, however, quickly did.
"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,'" said Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "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."
"This is a dogwhistle," the LGBTQ civil rights group Lambda Legal tweeted in response to Barrett's response. "The term 'sexual preference' is used by opponents of equality to suggest that being #LGBTQ is a choice."
\u201cToday is day two of irresponsible, illegitimate Senate #SCOTUSHearings for Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee.\n\nREMINDER: Her MANY writings/statements over the years confirm her hostility to civil rights. She has NO PLACE on the Supreme Court.\n\n#BlockBarrett\u201d— Lambda Legal (@Lambda Legal) 1602594359
\u201cDear Amy Coney Barrett: \u201cJust know that it\u2019s flat-out incorrect to refer to someone\u2019s sexual orientation as a \u2018preference\u2019. More than that, it\u2019s dangerous.\u201d \n\nImplying that someone\u2019s sexuality is a \u201cpreference\u201d implies that it can be changed \u2013 and it can\u2019t\nhttps://t.co/haEJY5l1R6\u201d— NCLR \u2013 National Center for Lesbian Rights (@NCLR \u2013 National Center for Lesbian Rights) 1602603655
"My identity is not a preference or a choice, and that you don't know that proves you can't be trusted to determine our community's future," tweeted Human Rights Campaign (HRC) president Alphonso David.
\u201c#AmyConeyBarrett: \u201cI have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference & would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.\u201d\n\nMy identity is not a preference or a choice. & that you don't know that proves you can't be trusted to determine our community's future.\u201d— Alphonso David (@Alphonso David) 1602602340
\u201cWhen Amy Coney Barrett refers to LGBTQ people with the term "sexual preference", that's intentional and it's doing two things:\n\n1. It's referring to homosexuality and bisexual as a choice.\n\n2. It's declining to recognize or affirm trans people.\n\nAnd she'll keep doing this. Watch.\u201d— charlotteclymer@mastodon.social (@charlotteclymer@mastodon.social) 1602601358
\u201cAmy Coney Barrett referred to being gay as a sexual \u201cpreference.\u201d\n\nThis is code language used to strip LGBT people of their rights.\n\nNo gay person says \u201cI think I prefer to be gay,\u201d in the same way they choose between a chocolate chip and peanut butter cookie.\u201d— Michael J. Stern (@Michael J. Stern) 1602598541
To many LGBTQ observers, the most alarming part of Tuesday's hearing was when Barrett was asked about her links to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a right-wing legal advocacy organization designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, in part for its support for the criminalization of consensual sex between LGBTQ adults in the United States and abroad.
In recent years, ADF also intervened in support of now-repealed European laws allowing forced sterilization of transgender people. The group has also argued in favor of permitting employers to fire workers solely for being transgender--a practice ruled unconstitutional by the historic 2020 Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County.
Barrett, who has been paid to speak at the ADF's Blackstone Legal Fellowship program on five occasions, told the Judiciary Committee that her "experience with the Blackstone program was a wonderful one," and that she was "not aware" of ADF's efforts to criminalize LGBTQ people or repeal same-sex marriage equality.
However, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) then noted that Blackstone Legal Fellowship reading materials referenced (pdf) ADF's defense of sodomy laws, and that ADF's website clearly states the group's opposition to same-sex marriage equality.
A recent report (pdf) by HRC warned that Barrett has "demonstrated hostility toward LGBT+ rights in her words and rulings," and that if confirmed, "she would advance a legal philosophy that yielded reliably and rabidly anti-LGBTQ rulings and dissents during Justice Scalia's tenure."
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
LGBTQ people and their allies condemned Judge Amy Coney Barrett during the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings Tuesday after the nominee falsely claimed she never discriminated against LGBTQ people, implied that their sexual orientation is a choice, and described her experience with an anti-gay hate group as "wonderful."
LGBTQ rights loomed large during the second day of Barrett's contentious Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation. President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nominee refused to say whether or not she would vote to roll back hard-fought civil rights while repeatedly dodging questions from Democrats on the committee about both her personal views on gay rights and how she might rule on the issue.
"My identity is not a preference or a choice, and that you don't know that proves you can't be trusted to determine our community's future."
--Alphonso David, Human Rights Campaign
While Supreme Court nominees routinely invoke the principle of "judicial canon" to avoid disclosing their beliefs on issues and cases, Barrett recently said she espouses the same judicial philosophy as the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who routinely ruled against civil rights for LGBTQ people, in cases ranging from the overturned Texas sodomy ban to the landmark 2015 marriage equality case Obergefell v. Hodges.
When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on her jurisprudential affinity for Scalia--for whom she clerked--Barrett replied that "you would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett."
"I have no agenda and 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 replied to questioning about Obergefell.
However, civil rights advocates were quick to remind the world that she had indeed discriminated against LGBTQ people. She did so while serving on the board of trustees of Trinity Schools Incorporated, a network of private Christian schools in Indiana which during her tenure enacted a policy prohibiting students with unmarried parents. As same-sex marriage was illegal in the state at the time, the policy effectively discriminated against LGBTQ people.
Furthermore, Barrett's use of the term "sexual preference" raised eyebrows and ire, as the word "preference" implies that sexual orientation is something LGBTQ people can control at will. Feinstein--a former San Francisco mayor who represents the state with the nation's largest LGBTQ population--said nothing about Barrett's use of the offensive term. Others, however, quickly did.
"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,'" said Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "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."
"This is a dogwhistle," the LGBTQ civil rights group Lambda Legal tweeted in response to Barrett's response. "The term 'sexual preference' is used by opponents of equality to suggest that being #LGBTQ is a choice."
\u201cToday is day two of irresponsible, illegitimate Senate #SCOTUSHearings for Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee.\n\nREMINDER: Her MANY writings/statements over the years confirm her hostility to civil rights. She has NO PLACE on the Supreme Court.\n\n#BlockBarrett\u201d— Lambda Legal (@Lambda Legal) 1602594359
\u201cDear Amy Coney Barrett: \u201cJust know that it\u2019s flat-out incorrect to refer to someone\u2019s sexual orientation as a \u2018preference\u2019. More than that, it\u2019s dangerous.\u201d \n\nImplying that someone\u2019s sexuality is a \u201cpreference\u201d implies that it can be changed \u2013 and it can\u2019t\nhttps://t.co/haEJY5l1R6\u201d— NCLR \u2013 National Center for Lesbian Rights (@NCLR \u2013 National Center for Lesbian Rights) 1602603655
"My identity is not a preference or a choice, and that you don't know that proves you can't be trusted to determine our community's future," tweeted Human Rights Campaign (HRC) president Alphonso David.
\u201c#AmyConeyBarrett: \u201cI have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference & would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.\u201d\n\nMy identity is not a preference or a choice. & that you don't know that proves you can't be trusted to determine our community's future.\u201d— Alphonso David (@Alphonso David) 1602602340
\u201cWhen Amy Coney Barrett refers to LGBTQ people with the term "sexual preference", that's intentional and it's doing two things:\n\n1. It's referring to homosexuality and bisexual as a choice.\n\n2. It's declining to recognize or affirm trans people.\n\nAnd she'll keep doing this. Watch.\u201d— charlotteclymer@mastodon.social (@charlotteclymer@mastodon.social) 1602601358
\u201cAmy Coney Barrett referred to being gay as a sexual \u201cpreference.\u201d\n\nThis is code language used to strip LGBT people of their rights.\n\nNo gay person says \u201cI think I prefer to be gay,\u201d in the same way they choose between a chocolate chip and peanut butter cookie.\u201d— Michael J. Stern (@Michael J. Stern) 1602598541
To many LGBTQ observers, the most alarming part of Tuesday's hearing was when Barrett was asked about her links to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a right-wing legal advocacy organization designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, in part for its support for the criminalization of consensual sex between LGBTQ adults in the United States and abroad.
In recent years, ADF also intervened in support of now-repealed European laws allowing forced sterilization of transgender people. The group has also argued in favor of permitting employers to fire workers solely for being transgender--a practice ruled unconstitutional by the historic 2020 Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County.
Barrett, who has been paid to speak at the ADF's Blackstone Legal Fellowship program on five occasions, told the Judiciary Committee that her "experience with the Blackstone program was a wonderful one," and that she was "not aware" of ADF's efforts to criminalize LGBTQ people or repeal same-sex marriage equality.
However, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) then noted that Blackstone Legal Fellowship reading materials referenced (pdf) ADF's defense of sodomy laws, and that ADF's website clearly states the group's opposition to same-sex marriage equality.
A recent report (pdf) by HRC warned that Barrett has "demonstrated hostility toward LGBT+ rights in her words and rulings," and that if confirmed, "she would advance a legal philosophy that yielded reliably and rabidly anti-LGBTQ rulings and dissents during Justice Scalia's tenure."
LGBTQ people and their allies condemned Judge Amy Coney Barrett during the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings Tuesday after the nominee falsely claimed she never discriminated against LGBTQ people, implied that their sexual orientation is a choice, and described her experience with an anti-gay hate group as "wonderful."
LGBTQ rights loomed large during the second day of Barrett's contentious Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation. President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nominee refused to say whether or not she would vote to roll back hard-fought civil rights while repeatedly dodging questions from Democrats on the committee about both her personal views on gay rights and how she might rule on the issue.
"My identity is not a preference or a choice, and that you don't know that proves you can't be trusted to determine our community's future."
--Alphonso David, Human Rights Campaign
While Supreme Court nominees routinely invoke the principle of "judicial canon" to avoid disclosing their beliefs on issues and cases, Barrett recently said she espouses the same judicial philosophy as the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who routinely ruled against civil rights for LGBTQ people, in cases ranging from the overturned Texas sodomy ban to the landmark 2015 marriage equality case Obergefell v. Hodges.
When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on her jurisprudential affinity for Scalia--for whom she clerked--Barrett replied that "you would not be getting Justice Scalia, you would be getting Justice Barrett."
"I have no agenda and 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 replied to questioning about Obergefell.
However, civil rights advocates were quick to remind the world that she had indeed discriminated against LGBTQ people. She did so while serving on the board of trustees of Trinity Schools Incorporated, a network of private Christian schools in Indiana which during her tenure enacted a policy prohibiting students with unmarried parents. As same-sex marriage was illegal in the state at the time, the policy effectively discriminated against LGBTQ people.
Furthermore, Barrett's use of the term "sexual preference" raised eyebrows and ire, as the word "preference" implies that sexual orientation is something LGBTQ people can control at will. Feinstein--a former San Francisco mayor who represents the state with the nation's largest LGBTQ population--said nothing about Barrett's use of the offensive term. Others, however, quickly did.
"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,'" said Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "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."
"This is a dogwhistle," the LGBTQ civil rights group Lambda Legal tweeted in response to Barrett's response. "The term 'sexual preference' is used by opponents of equality to suggest that being #LGBTQ is a choice."
\u201cToday is day two of irresponsible, illegitimate Senate #SCOTUSHearings for Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee.\n\nREMINDER: Her MANY writings/statements over the years confirm her hostility to civil rights. She has NO PLACE on the Supreme Court.\n\n#BlockBarrett\u201d— Lambda Legal (@Lambda Legal) 1602594359
\u201cDear Amy Coney Barrett: \u201cJust know that it\u2019s flat-out incorrect to refer to someone\u2019s sexual orientation as a \u2018preference\u2019. More than that, it\u2019s dangerous.\u201d \n\nImplying that someone\u2019s sexuality is a \u201cpreference\u201d implies that it can be changed \u2013 and it can\u2019t\nhttps://t.co/haEJY5l1R6\u201d— NCLR \u2013 National Center for Lesbian Rights (@NCLR \u2013 National Center for Lesbian Rights) 1602603655
"My identity is not a preference or a choice, and that you don't know that proves you can't be trusted to determine our community's future," tweeted Human Rights Campaign (HRC) president Alphonso David.
\u201c#AmyConeyBarrett: \u201cI have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference & would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.\u201d\n\nMy identity is not a preference or a choice. & that you don't know that proves you can't be trusted to determine our community's future.\u201d— Alphonso David (@Alphonso David) 1602602340
\u201cWhen Amy Coney Barrett refers to LGBTQ people with the term "sexual preference", that's intentional and it's doing two things:\n\n1. It's referring to homosexuality and bisexual as a choice.\n\n2. It's declining to recognize or affirm trans people.\n\nAnd she'll keep doing this. Watch.\u201d— charlotteclymer@mastodon.social (@charlotteclymer@mastodon.social) 1602601358
\u201cAmy Coney Barrett referred to being gay as a sexual \u201cpreference.\u201d\n\nThis is code language used to strip LGBT people of their rights.\n\nNo gay person says \u201cI think I prefer to be gay,\u201d in the same way they choose between a chocolate chip and peanut butter cookie.\u201d— Michael J. Stern (@Michael J. Stern) 1602598541
To many LGBTQ observers, the most alarming part of Tuesday's hearing was when Barrett was asked about her links to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a right-wing legal advocacy organization designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, in part for its support for the criminalization of consensual sex between LGBTQ adults in the United States and abroad.
In recent years, ADF also intervened in support of now-repealed European laws allowing forced sterilization of transgender people. The group has also argued in favor of permitting employers to fire workers solely for being transgender--a practice ruled unconstitutional by the historic 2020 Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County.
Barrett, who has been paid to speak at the ADF's Blackstone Legal Fellowship program on five occasions, told the Judiciary Committee that her "experience with the Blackstone program was a wonderful one," and that she was "not aware" of ADF's efforts to criminalize LGBTQ people or repeal same-sex marriage equality.
However, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) then noted that Blackstone Legal Fellowship reading materials referenced (pdf) ADF's defense of sodomy laws, and that ADF's website clearly states the group's opposition to same-sex marriage equality.
A recent report (pdf) by HRC warned that Barrett has "demonstrated hostility toward LGBT+ rights in her words and rulings," and that if confirmed, "she would advance a legal philosophy that yielded reliably and rabidly anti-LGBTQ rulings and dissents during Justice Scalia's tenure."