Mike Pence
Vice-President to the Trump Administration. 2016, people unearthed a 2000 campaign website wherein, after discussing his opinion on congressional funding for patients with HIV/AIDS, the website said, “Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.” According to the New York Times, his spokesperson at the time went no, no, he meant safe sex practices. Now, this might be weird, but follow me here. What organizations provide psychological relief to help people choose to use condoms? Do you know of any dedicated to that? I don’t. But I do know that I have spent enough time online since people have debated gay marriage as far back as 2012 using that phrasing of “seeking to change their sexual behavior” to refer to conversion therapy. It’s still used on Twitter if you look at Side B and Side X Christians talk about gay people needing to be celibate or straight or at least straight marriages for god.
Now, what really puts that over the top for me is the platform the administration he was part of helped craft and approve carried an endorsement for conversion therapy.
Speaking of, thanks to the Internet Archive, I found a post of his from 2007 which says, “Finally, pro-homosexual activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign have stated their belief that an ad campaign by pro-family groups showing that many former homosexual people had found happines in a heterosexual lifestyle, contributed to the tragic 1998 murder of homosexual college student Matthew Shepard. … However, the danger here is that people use a hate crimes bill to silenve the freedom of religious leaders to speak out against homosexuality.”
Now, for my purposes here, I’m not really interested in investigating the motivation of the barbaric killing of Matthew Shepard. I only read that so I could give his full thought. What interests me is the wording before then. Besides contrasting pro-homosexual with pro-family and thereby implying that the two concepts are completely at odds with each other, Pence here simply accepts the premise: conversion therapy ad campaigns truly do show what they purport to show, gay people being happy through living as if they’re straight. He also calls sexuality a lifestyle. That seems to me to be further evidence of his support for conversion therapy. Especially since he then seems to imply that conversion therapy is simple, good religious speech and advocacy. Now, advocating for conversion therapy is, probably, unfortunately, free speech, that is true. But there’s no indication here that he’s against conversion therapy in any way.
In 2010, on John King, USA, then Congressman Pence argued against repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the policy that prevented members of the US Military from coming out of the closet without being discharged. Pence argued that some soldiers he talked to didn’t want that and obviously the homophobia of random people should dictate military policy, while implicating that allowing openly queer people to serve would somehow be against the interest of national security. That makes me think of all of those implications that allowing gay marriage would somehow be the destruction of civil society.
On a similar note, in 2004, while arguing for the “Protect Marriage Act” which would restrict courts from being allowed to consider the constitutionality of the part of DOMA which allowed states to not recognize same-sex marriages from other states or the law itself, Pence claimed marriage was under attack by activist judges. A case he pointed to as an attack and blueprint for the supposed-downfall of marraige? Lawrence v. Texas. One can imply from that that he opposed that ruling, though he doesn’t right-out say here that he thinks queer intimacy should be illegal.
At the start of 2015, Pence, then Governor of Indiana, signed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act that opponents said would be used to discriminate against queer people and certain supporters claimed adding non-discrimination clarification would ruin the point of the bill. Pence defended the bill over and over, though he also, to his credit, readily signed a follow-up bill that clarified it does not allow for-profit corporations or individuals to discriminate against people, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. That came after intense backlash. In a 2022 interview with NPR, he seems to indicate a slight annoyance that the state was forced to do that though without saying he doesn’t think it was the wrong move. He says the original bill didn’t allow for discrimination, though from the legal analysis I read and from how certain supporters reacted to the clarification bill, that certainly was the original intention.
In that same interview, he supports the Trump trans military ban, still,in 2022, implying that allowing trans people in the military would mess with unit cohesion. It was the same nonsense argument that he made for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He immediately pivots instead of expanding on that thought, though he eventually circles back to it and says the military should stay focused on defending the nation. There’s a sort of implication there that allowing trans people to serve would cripple and weaken the military. That’s a nonsense statement. It’s a transphobic statement.
Interestingly, I will say, Pence has taken a very interesting, more mainstream, from what I gather, homophobic Republican view on marriage recently. That being, according to an interview with CBS, that though he personally views it as morally wrong, which, to be clear, makes him a homophobe regardless of what else he says, he doesn’t make a case to overturn Obergefell. Instead he talks about balancing religious freedom which generally means letting religious people discriminate, which is bad, and the nation needs to move forward. That implies, to me, that he doesn’t want to continue to litigate same-sex marriage or campaign on it. Though, of course, we haven’t seen him decide to run for office again yet and make specific policy prescriptions on a website. So I also acknowledge there’s a chance that this is simply a statement that he says to take the pressure away from his homophobia. He does say he disagrees with the ruling in Obergefell still, though. That to me says he still thinks states have a right to discriminate against queer people when it comes to fundamental rights such as marriage.
Which leads me to say, that his homophobic beliefs led him to oppose the Respect for Marriage Act which expressly changed the part of the law that the Protect Marriage Act sought to protect. If Obergefell, god forbid, gets overturned, states will be required by federal law to recognize and not discriminate against same-sex marriages done by other states. According to The Daily Signal, were he in Congress, he would vote against it. Because he is still a bigot, no matter how statesmanly he attempts to dress and hide his horrid views.
Thanks to The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara, I got to read through a speech that Vice-President Pence made in 2017 at a celebratory event for a little organization known as Focus on the Family. While it seems he was mostly there to hype up the administration’s commitment to being anti-choice and its desire to repeal Obamacare, he went out of his way to praise the oragnization on its then 40 years. He said, “And it’s a privilege to be here on this history day – the 40th anniversary of a cornerstone of American life for so many Americans, an organization that has been a champion without equal for American families, a bastion of grace that has inspired millions with your model of Christian love.” He also said, “I’m really here today on the President’s behalf to congratulate Focus on the Family 40 years of visions, 40 years of compassion. And most of all I’m here today to congratulate Focus on the Family for 40 years of consequence for faith and families all across these United States.”
He specifically goes on to praise founder and former leader, Dr. James Dobson.
Before his election loss in 2020, Pence also appeared on a Focus on the Family broadcast which I read the transcript for. It includes more praise for the organization and Dobson. There’s a lot of talk about the vague idea of family. There’s also a moment where the interviewer decides to bring up religious liberty and the like, and one thing he specifically mentions is faith-based adoption agencies and the recent apparent “vitriol” they face. This seems to clearly be a reference to those adoption agencies that want to be able to enjoy government contracts and federal monies whilst discriminating against queer people. Pence responds to it by talking about the Trump administration “removing barriers” as they say and letting them “participate in providing services, whether that be shelter, whether that be adoption services…”
They seem to be careful to avoid flat out saying “we should be allowed to discriminate.” And Pence, in his way, seems to say, “Yeah, you’re right.”
So for my last bit on Pence, though like with Trump, there is plenty to talk about, and I have not gotten into the blatant transphobia such as his jumping on the conservative hate train against swimmer Mia Thomspon, but for my last bit, let’s get into why that praise for Focus on the Family and James Dobson is is a clear and disgusting mark of homophobia against both him, Trump, and every other conservative who praises them.
Focus on the Family
Founded 1977 by James Dobson. A major force in conservative evangelical politics.
An article posted in 2022, “Responding to a Transgender-Identified Family Member” tells people to maybe use someone’s preferred name, but definitely don’t use their preferred pronouns. It also says that being trans is a sexual thing which simply is not true. Gender and sexuality are not the same thing by any means. They suggest telling someone, “Hey, we love you, but we’re scared to have our kids around you because we want them to be hateful bigots.” Oh, and biological essentialism of how men and women should behave, of course.
They have a Q&A document I read through which says, “Hey, don’t be aggressive and cruel,” which, thanks, I do appreciate that. But it suggests confronting schools. It suggests the schools are infected and are infecting children with being trans, a social contagion theory which is not real and is legitimately Nazi rhetoric about LGBT people. It says to confront schools about it. Conflats gender identity with sexual activity, again. Suggests a connection with being trans and being autisitc or abused. Lists mental health issues and plays an innocent dunce, “Oh who can tell whether those cause or are caused by being trans?” When the answer is that LGBT people exhibit such mental health issues becuase people aren’t affirming and are cruel. Because governments and politicians and religions fight against our rights, call us pedophiles, and tell us we’re abominations to god. They know that though. Every idiot who brings this up knows that non-affirming people are why those mental health issues exist at such rates. But they play stupid so they don’t have to come to that fact.
Now obviously, there are a million of these.
In a Q&A titled “Responding to Teen Child Who Says He’s Gay,” Focus gives advice that pretty much amounts to: gaslight the hell out of your kid. Question him, get him to question himself, try to get him to stop identifying as gay and instead as someone with same-sex attraction. It suggests talking about how God would hate it if he ever got in a loving same-sex relationship. Because they’re spiritually and emotionally abusive. It says there’s hope if he’s confused, struggling, or ashamed. But otherwise he’s “uncompromising.” As if there’s a compromise to be reached. There isn’t. They tell you to talk it out with counselor. But only if they’re an anti-gay christian counselor. They then have a list of resources.
On that list of resources is a link to a video called “Love Won Out: Someone I love is Gay” by Thriving Values. In a section towards the end, the speaker, Jeff Johnston, who the video says works at Focus on the Family, suggests people look into Exodus International among other ex-gay ministry nonsense. It’s telling parents and loved ones to start looking at trying to stick their kids into conversion therapy.
Fun fact about that man: he also wrote a pamphlet thing for Focus on the Family called “Understanding Male Homosexuality” where at the end, he quotes an ex-gay group that says the goal and true understanding and hope is that people realize they’re part of God’s “heterosexual creation” and should be healed and act in that. He has a quote from someone else which says “no one is really gay.”
Now you might hear that, and think, oh, so Focus on the Family is a hate group that advocates for torture.
And you would be right.
Love Won Out, part of the title of that gross video, is actually a former thing. A thing launched by Focus on the Family in 1998, the year I was born, known as an ex-gay ministry. In other words, a group dedicated to the harassment of and torture of queer people. It was bought by Exodus International, another horrid conversion therapy spiritial abuse group. People involved in leadership of both groups, since the dissolution of Exodus and therefore the death of the former one, have come out and rightfully apologized for the pain they have inflicted on countless queer people throughout the years.
But, Focus on the Family didn’t apologize.
In fact, a lot of anti-queer hate group, pro-torture abusers joined a different network. That network is called Restored Hope. Now, you might be a little curious. You might be wondering, gee, I wonder who is on the board. Specifically, the Board of Reference, whatever the hell that is. Well, on that board you have current President of Focus on the Family, Jim Daly. You also have hateful butter man, Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.
Which all comes together to make Focus on the Family effectively an ex-gay ministry itself. A bigoted hate group that masks its hate under its version of Christianity whilst advocating against LGBT rights and advocating for our psychological and emotional torture under the false belief that you can “fix” us, something that has no evidence to back it up.
That’s the group Mike Pence and by extension Donald Trump decided to lavish in praise.
That is the group founded by James Dobson, Mike Pence’s hero.
So let’s talk about that piece of shit.
James Dobson
Besides being the founder of Focus on the Family and supporter of conversion torture on queer people, Dobson wrote an article in Time Magazine called “Two Mommies is One Too Many” where he decries Mary Cheney’s pregnancy and plans to raise the kid with her wife. He says this isn’t about politics, but the children. Familiar talking point, isn’t it? It’s almost as if Dobson and Focus on the Family are influential to the right wing and their ability to peddle and mask their bigoted views and hatred. He claims, falsely, because he doesn’t care about facts, that children are worse off when raised by same-sex parents and that same-sex parents raising children will damage the nation. Sounds strikingly familiar to the GOP’s platform language implying that gay marriage will destroy civilization.
What does Dobson consider good parenting? Beating the shit out of your kids in demanding loyalty. Suddenly those articles from Focus on the Family about dealing with LGBT children make a bit more sense. That’s why they direct parents to ex-gay conversion therapy bullshit. Because it’s fine to torture your children into submission. They say to make sure to love and be a loving experience in your child’s life while encouraging gaslighting and spiritual abuse. Because it was founded by a defender of child abuse. Shocking.
But it’s about the children! After all, in his book Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle, Dobson says gay marriage will destroy families, hurt kids, prevent us from being able to happily discriminate like Christ would want, the world might become more accepting of queer people, and God will exert his apocalyptical wrath on the planet. Afterall, that’s what happened to Sodom & Gomorrah, isn’t it? It’s not. Legitimately, even if you are a member of an Abrahamic religion, being gay is not the sin of Sodom. Read the story. I mean, don’t, it’s not a fun read, but at least read it if you’re going to use it as an excuse to claim we’ll cause the downfall of civilization. Now you may be thinking, doesn’t being against gay marriage because it means people and governmental services won’t be able to discriminate make one a bigot? Yes, it does. Because Dobson is.
Dobson didn’t only found Focus, support conversion torture of queer people, and lie/misrepresent studies to oppose LGBT rights and adoption, he also founded another organization that, once upon a time, was part of Focus on the Family: a little conservative group designated as a hate-group by the Southern Poverty Law Center called the Family Research Council.
So I guess that means, oopsie, there’s another section to hit here to cover how disgusting it is to celebrate James Dobson.
Family Research Council
The Family Research Council you might have heard of. It’s a conservative Evangelical lobbying group that was instrumental in getting Roe v Wade overturned.
Now why, oh why, would the SPLC designate such a poor group of well-meaning Christian conservatives as a hate-group? Well, that would be because the FRC has and continues to push a narrative the LGBT people pose a danger to children, are more likely to sexually assault a child, and are out to groom children and demand acceptance for pedophilia. Now when you hear that, you might pause for a moment. You might think, wait, that sounds familiar. That argument, you might think, is the argument used by Ron DeSantis and his supporters for the Don’t Say Gay Bill. That’s the argument put forth by provocateur and stochastic terrorist Libs of Tiktok.
I read through the SPLC’s page on the group. They quoted many members of and articles from the FRC. I’ll give you some highlights.
2022: “So, when did religious freedom become an excuse to discriminate? From the beginning.”
2019: “[T]he demands of transgender supremacy … deflect much-needed resources away from the pandemic of autism.” Also, by the way, eugensicst language comparing autism diagnoses to a pandemic is extremely out of pocket.
2019: “For years, LGBT activists wanted to keep the goal of luring children into sexual confusion under wraps.”
2018, about the marriage equality: “It’s about obliterating every moral and cultural boundary humans have ever known.”
There’s a “I identify as an attack helicopter” type joke. There’s a statement that mental health issues amongst LGBT people is on the fault of us being LGBT and not on unaffirming policies and people, which is the reality. That it’s unnatural. That gay men are more likely to abuse children. That gay families adopt kids to sexually assault them.
You get the picture.
The FRC and Focus filed an amicus brief in Lawrence v Texas. Guess what side they argued? If you guessed on the side of criminalizing gay sex, you’d be right. They call it an evil and deviate act that states might have a vested interest in restricting.
Current President of FRC, Tony Perkins, in 2018 still argued against the Lawrence decision, calling it a mistake that led to gay marriage and therefore a moment on the path to destruction of human history. He quotes Scalia’s slippery slope argument that says if we can’t ban the gays, then why can’t we ban bestiality?
One of the first results on the “Featured Resources on Sexuality” of the FRC’s website is an article claiming that sexual orientation is something that can be changed which is, you guessed it, tacit approval of employing conversion torture against LGBT people.
The also issued briefs in Windsor and Obergefell arguing against gay marriage, of course.
Well, that should be it, shouldn’t it? James Dobson founded two vastly influential anti-LGBT hate groups that have unflinching grips on the conservative movement. Well, unfortunately, comedy is not the only thing that comes in threes.
Because now it’s time to talk about one more organization James Dobson helped found: The so-called Alliance Defending Freedom.
Alliance Defending Freedom
So the ADF is mostly a legal group. They take up court cases and endorse candidates, they lobby for laws, etc. etc..
The ADF started a fun little school protest event called “Day of Truth” to oppose “Day of Silence” protests that pointed out anti-LGBT bullying in schools. Now why would that be their response? Probably because they want to bully LGBT kids but also don’t want to labelled a bully for doing that bullying. Now, thanks to the Internet Archive, I read a Q&A from the Day of Truth website. They say the ADF launched the project, but guess who ended up taking over? That’s right, ex-gay torture society, Exodus International. They also go on to argue for a Christian “natural rights” understanding of both morality and the constitution, and that includes the apparent truth that LGBT people are icky and should be bullied and are wrong and against god.
Okay, so maybe the ADF supports people bullying LGBT children. But surely, eslewise, they want to protect children, right? And that must be why they took up the case of Brian Tingley, a counselor who ran afoul of Washington law by doing conversion therapy on minors. Now, Brian’s conversion therapy is talk therapy. So if you remember that court case I mentioned where the 11th Couty of Appeals decided that talk therapy is not medical care and therefore can’t be regulated, a ridiculous conclusion that basically claims talk therapy is useless and thereby should recieve no credit or respect? Well, that logic is the logic put forth by the ADF on their website where they talk about Tingley’s case, Tingley v. Ferguson, which it wants SCOTUS to take up because they rightfully lost in the 9th circuit. In other words, the ADF wants SCOTUS to rule that Christians have a right to commit children to mental, emotional, and spirirtual torture that does not work and which studies have shown harm the people who go through it. Isn’t that lovely?
Their website says, today, that gay marriage subjects “women, children, and the underprivileged” to distress. They say that gay marriage is inherently selfish, much like how Ron Peri’s Christian nationalist group The Gathering calls trans people hedonistic, because all of these groups are interconnected in their underlying commitment to exerting the boot on people’s back under the name of aseticism for all but them. They imply that gay marriage will destroy society, and imply gay adoption is disgusting.
On their page talking about parental rights, they call the inclusion of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race as horrible things schools are teaching. Now one can conclude based on their statements against gay people, their alliance with Exodus, their founding by Dobson, and founding a protest to support the bullying of LGBT children, that when the ADF says harmful lessons, what they mean is that schools aren’t putting out a moral screed against LGBT people and might even express accepting attitudes, or, god forbid, acknowledge that queer people exist. As far as race, they definitely mean just talking about racism. They say schools are encouraging kids to be trans, transing the kids one might say, when that is not a thing. Schools might be accepting. And they deride that schools don’t then turn around and out children to their parents. I’m sorry, parents, but whether or not a child comes out to you is up to them. Not you. Not the school. Not anyone. It’s up to your child. Oh, and they defend adoption and foster care agencies discriminating against people on religious homophobia and transphobia grounds.
Fun fact - on their page arguing against their designated as a hate-group by the SPLC is to say they don’t support conversion therapy! They just support the rights of people to conduct conversion therapy. That’s different! They just don’t want bans on conversion therapy. Reasonable people sign up to be tortured or send their children to get tortured!
They support conversion therapy. Elsewise they’d have never interacted with Exodus International. They wouldn’t take up the Tingley case.
Get fucked, ADF.
They filed a brief in Lawrence v. Texas in favor of sodomy laws which claimed what the court should actually consider is “whether it is reasonable to believe that same-sex sodomy is a distinct public health problem. It clearly is.”
Speaking of Lawrence, their global version praised India’s recriminalization of homosexuality, saying “India chose to protect society at large rather than give in to a vocal minority of homosexual advocates,” which, to me, says they’re lying when they claim on their website they do not want the US to recriminalize being LGBT.
They argued in favor of a funeral home that fired an employee for being trans in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity, arguing regular employers are and should be allowed to discriminate against trans people and, by extention, LGBT people. That case was decided along Bostock. They lost.
There’s more. But I think that’s enough. The ADF is all over the conservative movement, and it has the filth of James Dobson all over it. These are the organizations that Trump and Pence decided to praise, and that is the man Pence idolized.
Let’s move on to some other Republicans.
Mitch McConnell
Senator from Kentucky, current Senate Minority leader, soon to be retired. He:
Appointed Tony Perkins, head of hate group the Family Research Council, to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, probably to award him for being a notorious bigot heading a hate group.
Voted against appealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Defended the discriminatory section of DOMA.
Disagreed with Obergefell, of course.
He voted against the Respect for Marriage Act.
When he was Majority Leader, he refused to take up or allow a vote on the Equality Act that would prohibit discrimination against LGBT people, placing language to that effect in the Civil Rights Act.
Voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Endorsed by the Family Research Council in 2020.
Human Rights Campaign Scores:
117th Congress 14
116th 0
115th 0
114th 20
113th 0
112th 0
11th 0
110th 0
So, since 2007, he’s scored a total of 34 points. Out of 800.
Lindsey Graham
Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. Now first, I want to say that I’m not going to go into the rumors about Graham and his proclivities. I understand the pointing out of hypocrisy, but the way a lot of his critics gleefully run to that line of attacks on him… I understand it, but it gives me the ick. There’s something dark to me the idea that we choose whether or not to be homophobic or femphobic based on someone’s politics. That’s part of why I’m uncomfortable with my fellow queers using the f-slur against each other, not in a reclamatory way, but as a slur. I’m sorry. If you use a slur as a slur, you are not reclaiming it. You are simply using it. Calling someone a slur whom you do not have a rapport with and/or who has not expressed an acceptance for being called that is simply cruel. It’s part of why, for instance, when I here someone express discomfort with being called queer as an umbrella term because they have experience with it as a slur, as long as they are not using it as an attack on their fellow LGBT+ siblings, I can’t hold that against them. Be kind and gracious to each other when you can choose to be.
Okay, with that out of the way, let’s actually briefly talk about Lindsey Graham.
Graham voted against overturning Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by claiming that it would increase casualties, which is a ridiculous statement. “Oh damn, this guy is gay. This knowledge has destroyed all of my training, preparedness, and abilities.” If people being gay destroys the effectiveness of the military, it’s not an effective military in the first place. The only way allowing people to serve whilst out of the closet could cause harm would be by, I would imagine, causing discomfort for homophobic servicepeople who hate LGBT people and would suddenly hate their fellows, which is that bigots problem to get over, or by rooting out homophobia as a fear tactic to be used as a way to bully, intimidate, and break the will of trainees.
When asked by a constituent about protecting his and other LGBT South Carolinians’ rights, according to Out Magazine, Graham mentioned the binding ruling of SCOTUS, defended religious homophobes from the label of “bigot”, and said, “I’ve tried to be tolerant … when it comes to South Carolina, I think I’ve been an effective voice for who we are…”
Now, “I have tried to be tolerant” to me sounds off-putting. It implies, look, I’m doing my best no to tell you how disgusting I find you and how much I wish for society to go to a point where your rights were not the law of the land. His record is opposing queer rights.
Though, to give him some small credit, according to a NY1 article, Graham said he doesn’t agree with Justice Thomas that the Dobbs ruling calls LGBT rights cases into question.
Though he also said that he still believes the issue should be left up to the states as he believes, apparently, that civil rights should be up to voters.
Lindsey does not believe himself in same-sex marriage.
He voted against the Respect for Marriage Act.
Lindsey signed onto an amicus brief supporting the rights of religious adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBT people.
He voted no on a law that would ban employment discrimination for LGBT people.
Endorsed by anti-gay hate group Family Research Council.
HRC scores:
117th Congress 16
116th 0
115th 12
114th 24
113th 0
112th 15
111th 13
110th 0
Total score: 80/800
Ted Cruz
He’s gross so let’s go through this quickly.
Endorsed by anti-gay hate group Family Research Council.
Voted against the Respect for Marriage act.
Voted against Employment Non-discrimination Act
Endorsed by notorious bigot and LGBT hate-monger James Dobson for the 2016 primary.
While speaking at the Texas GOP convention in 2022, he claimed LGBT people are going after children and that children’s media should not include us in any way, claiming that we’re after the destruction of America.
That convention resulted in the state GOP platform including sections calling homosexuality an “abnormal lifestyle choice,” says they “oppose all efforts to validate transgender identity,” and includes support for fucking conversion therapy because of it course it does. I find it very telling that Cruz spoke about defending the children at a conference with a platform that explicitly defends the torture of LGBT people, including children. I do not know what influence senators have over state platforms, and they might not have any, but the lack of response about that part of the platform while he was there says he cares more about his bigotry than he does children.
He signed onto a brief in Fulton defending the idea that religious people should be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people.
In 2023, Cruz still opposes Obergefell and marriage equality, though he thinks it might not get overturned because it could cause an administrative headache.
According to a Vanity Fair article, Cruz looked at opposition to Florida’s Don’t Say Gay Bill and, I’m assuming in a joking way, said that Disney’s opposition means it wants to show kids weird hentai or Mickey and Pluto having sex. He also implies having queer people on children’s TV is inherently scandalous, sexual, it’s not “innocuous.” The implication of course is that we are grooming pedophiles and acknowledging our existence around children is the same as showing them porn.
HRC scorecards:
117th Congress 0
116th 0
115th 0
114th 0
113th 20
That’s a total of 20/500
SCOTUS
Let’s talk about conservative members of the Supreme Court. Now I will say, in general, that I think judges might not and maybe ought not use their personal views to shape the way they rule. There’s a reason that people call themselves originalists or textualists or what not and few outright call themselves naturalists or natural law legal theorists. But I also think we can take general trends amongst rulings and the ways in which opinions are written to determine whether or not a justice’s personal biases come into play. For instance, when Scalia wonders whether or not banning sodomy laws would lead to being unable to regulate things such as murder, we can tell from that he own bigotry. When people go on and on about the lack of queer rights in history to support their ruling against queer rights, one can imagine they are putting support behind tradition because they view tradition as some moral force that ought be adhered to and maybe queer people are immoral and so on and such forth. So.
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas called Sodomy laws silly, but he dissented in Lawrence v Texas because he doesn’t believe in the right to privacy or, I guess, equal protection or anything, but he would totally have voted to repeal the law. He also joined in on Scalia’s dissent.
He dissented in Obergefell v. Hodges.
In 2020, he called Kim Davis a victim of the Obergefell decision because she wanted to discriminate against gay people and the government said no.
He joined in on Alito’s dissent in Bostock v. Clayton County, arguing that prohibiting sex discrimination does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, despite the obvious logical conclusion that it is.
He joined in on Scalia’s dissent in Windsor v. United States, as well as Alito’s dissent.
His concurrence in Dobbs said the court should reconsider Obergefell and other LGBT rights cases.
Amy Coney Barrett
Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Before her time on the Court, according to the AP, Barrett served on the board of Trinity Schools, Inc., a group of private Christian schools that discriminate against LGBT people in hiring and apparently made it clear to students and prospective students that queer people are not welcome there. I did not find any statements that implied Barrett in anyway argued against those policies or has publically spoken on them.
Trinity Schools is associated with People of Praise, the religious group Barrett belongs to (she’s a Catholic, if you didn’t know, though the group is not strictly Catholic). In that same AP article, there are recollections of members of People of Praise praying that some gay family members would stop being gay. One said he was forced into conversion therapy and that he was also “counseled by a senior People of Praise leader that same-sex attraction was “changeable” with treatment and prayer.” Others state that the group holds a strict Side B Christianity that gay people can be gay so long as they don’t do anything about it, though it honestly seems like they’re actually Side X. One woman was kicked out and her family shunned after she came out. People of Praise declines those accusations or claims they’re inaccurate in some way.
When Coney Barrett’s nomination was being debated, conservatives called objections that look towards her religious and personal beliefs as anti-Catholic bias.
So fine. I’ll come out and say it.
I do not respect your religious beliefs if they are bigoted. If your religion tells you that marriage is only between a man and a woman, your religion is homophobic. If you religious beliefs say that being gay or trans is either a choice or a result of the Fall, your religious beliefs are homophobic. Racism does not become defensible because the person who has it disguises their bigotry in religion. Homophobia and transphobia are not suddenly beyond reproach because they are arrived at via religion. It is more than reasonable to look at religious beliefs that call for discrimination against queer people, that call our existences incorrect, and use that to establish whether or not someone is bigoted.
If Coney Barrett believes, as the People of Faith seem to, that gay people must be celibate and that being and acting on being gay is wrong, then she is anti-LGBT bigot.
“But her God says that,” someone might say. Then her God is a bigot.
Any Christian theological view which is not firmly Side A, also known as the affirming position, is a homophobic theology. That goes for any religion. Islamic homophobia, Thelemic homophobia, Buddhist, whatever. It is still homophobia. It is still transphobia.
Something being a religious belief does not mean it is beyond critique, examination, or even shunning.
During her confirmation hearings, though she apologized for it and said she meant no offense, Coney Barrett repeatedly referred to sexual orientation as “sexual preference.” Now, for those of you who may not be hyper vigilant to homophobia, that might not necessarily strike you. But the word preference implies a multitude. It implies a choice. The implication that it is a choice is then taken that it’s able to be chosen away from, that it might change, that it could be a moral evil chosen by deviants. Given the supposed beliefs of her religious group, it’s not a large stretch of imagination to conclude that Coney Barrett does view sexual orientation as a moral negative, as something people can heal from, and as a choice, a “preference.”
According to the Human Rights Campaign, before her nomination, she misgendered transwomen as “physiological males who identify as females,” which seems very close to me to the TERF version “Trans-Identified male.”
Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch, to his absolute credit, in a way that lives up to the legacy of Justice Kennedy moreso than Scalia, whom he replaced, was the author of the Majority Opinon in Bostock, saying Title VII protections against sex discrimination of course prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
His pre-SCOTUS ruling in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius seems to me though that he might accept the Braidwood Management that requiring coverage for PrEP violates religious freedom.
On a less speculative note, in his pre-SCOTUS days, he ruled a few times against trans people, including in healthcare.
Gorsuch wrote a dissenting opinion in Pavan v. Smith which I read through both opinions entirely because it was a summary reversal and thankfully short. At issue was an Arkansas law not allowing same-sex married partners appear on birth certificates despite having instances where non-biological fathers married to the mother are allowed on the certificate. The argument against was some sort of interest in medical record keeping? To be honest, Gorsuch’s dissent made it seem like the case was moot because another law should have allowed the names to be placed and that maybe it was already there, but then wouldn’t the lawsuit be rejected on standing grounds given there would be no harm? What it seems like to me is some sort of twisting into saying the state has an interest in only having biological parents on the certificate, even though it has exceptions, and allows for adoptive parents to be placed, which would be an excuse to not offer full protections to queer families. I don’t know, it was an odd read. It an LGBT rights case so I’m including it but I’m not really sure what to make of it.
Samuel Alito
Alright, Alito.
As mentioned in the Thomas section, Alito dissented in Bostock.
He joined Thomas when he wrote in 2020 that Kim Davis a victim of the Obergefell decision because she wanted to discriminate against gay people and the government said no.
He dissented in Windsor.
He dissented in Obergefell, seeming to be upset, as Scalia often was, that opponents of gay rights might now be seen as bigots. Which he was correct about. Because they are bigots.
Brett Kavanaugh
Alright, time for Mr. I Like Beer.
Justice Kavanaugh. His confirmation was urged by anti-LGBT hate group the Family Research Council.
Much like Gorsuch, despite my searching, there isn’t much information from his pre-SCOTUS days that might indicate much on his potential rulings. A Human Rights Campaign document pointed to his time in the Bush Whitehouse in the 2000s and likely but unknown hand in decisions such as the push for an amendment defining marriage in a way that discriminates against LGBT people. That same document talks about his take on religious objections to healthcare for, in this case, contraceptives. This makes me think he too might be on the side of religious arguments in Braidwood Management and other healthcare decisions that would allow for discrimination against queer people.
He also dissented in Bostock.
Chief Justice John Roberts
Chief Justice John Roberts dissented in Obergefell and says that just because there’s a fundamental right, it doesn’t mean that the government can’t decide to discriminate and choose not to extend that right. He laments the changing of a long held tradition. He talks about how marriage is there for children. It’s a natural law argument against gay marriage without outright saying he’s against gay people. He argues that States have a legitimate interest in preserving traditional marriage, though besides his talk about child rearing beforehand, I don’t really see what he suggests that is. “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage,” he says, but he’s wrong. Bigots oppose same-sex marriage. Homophobes oppose same-sex marriage.
He dissented in Windsor.
At the same time, he was in the majority on Bostock.
The thing about jursits, I find, is that, in general, unlike most politicians, they’re harder to pin down. Often times they rule in multiple ways on the same or incredibly similar cases and issues. They have their own understandings of law, philosophy, the Constitution, and precedent. Constitutional Law is complicated and that’s why people spend their lives dedicated to it, and why so many who do disagree on it. I think that leads us to both want to politicize and de-politicize the judiciary. We want to imagine the a-political jurist. We imagine every ruling as political. As not. You often get desires to elect judges. And I understand that instinct, but, at the same time, I look at campaigns and their position to hand out sentences and judge laws, and suddenly I imagine a much darker and stricter justice system, everyone needing to show how tough and ideological they are. Then again, now we play obfuscating games and dodge ideas of jurists possibly ruling based off their politics. I don’t have a solution of even a prescription here besides this: the courts and who is on them matter. As such, the Senate, the president, and the Senate Judiciary Committee are of utmost importance.
Comments