Two days into Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings, some senators have had enough. Responding to Barrett’s homophobic and degrading use of the term “sexual preference” rather than “sexual orientation” on Tuesday, Hawaiian Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono put Barrett in her place. The senior senator not only acknowledged Barrett’s attempt to dodge and not respond to questions on same-sex marriage, but addressed the valid concerns the LGBTQ community had on Barrett’s nomination and the impact of it on their constitutional rights.
"This morning Sen. Feinstein asked you a question about the Supreme Court 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, a case in which the court recognized the constitutional right to same-sex marriage and I was disappointed that you wouldn't give a direct answer if you agreed with the majority in that case or if you instead agreed with your mentor Justice Scalia that no such right exists in the Constitution," Hirono said. "Even though you didn't give a direct answer I think your response did speak volumes, not once, but twice you used the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community. And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not.”
“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,” Hirono continued. She added that she does not think the use of the term was an accident but intentionally used by Coney Barrett. Citing previous statements by Coney Barett that Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy is her own, Hirono noted that more than 11 million people who identify as LGBTQ in the U.S. are rightfully afraid that Coney Barett’s confirmation would cause“the court to roll back everything the LGBTQ community has gained over the past two decades and push them back into the closet.”
Hirono’s strong words must have hit Barrett’s cold heart to an extent, because her face was priceless. While she issued a non-apology, Barrett also attempted to clarify that she did not mean to and “would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community.” Apparently, her “point of not answering was to simply say it’s inappropriate for me to say a response.” Hmph, interesting. What’s not appropriate exactly? Her very clear views on LGBTQ rights? “So if I did, I greatly apologize for that. I simply meant to be referring to Obergefell's holding with respect to same-sex marriage," Barrett continued.
Barret used the outdated and offensive term when “answering” whether the Constitution protects gay people’s right to marry. Instead of directly answering the question she claimed she does not discriminate against sexual orientation, but instead of using the term “sexual orientation,” she deferred to using “preference,” implying that one has a choice in their sexual orientation. "I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would never discriminate on the basis of sexual preference," Barrett said.
According to The Washington Post, by the time Barrett issued her “apology,” her words had already made it across social media, with many LGBTQ activists noting that her word choice was intentional and “more telling than it seemed.” The statement was seen as a dog whistle of her lack of understanding of the issues at hand, and evidence that Donald Trump was working to maintain his promise to appoint a judge with views as conservative and ill as his own.
In 2015, Barrett even signed a letter to Catholic bishops that included the statement: “marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman,” The Hill reported.
As my colleague, Kerry, noted, “Barrett’s embrace of anti-gay bigotry isn't just theoretical.” While she may not have been directly been involved in anti-gay policy, Barrett has actively enforced it. She may have dodged most of the questions she was asked, but her short responses and word choice shouted her ideology. Let’s make no mistake: We all know that despite her claims that she’s “neutral” when wearing the robe, she’s not.
Hirono: “So coupled with your use of the term sexual preference, coupled with your view on precedents, and that a justice’s view or her own analysis of the constitutionality should overtake or overcome precedents, if it’s in conflict. This is why so many people in the LGBTQ community are so concerned that you would, in fact, join the signaling that these two justices have already put out there that Obergefell will fall by the wayside.”
Watch Hirono’s response below:
