Barrett Lobs Anti-LGBT Dog Whistle In Senate Hearing

Barrett Lobs Anti-LGBT Dog Whistle In Senate Hearing

The Guardian reports:

Moments ago, Amy Coney Barrett was asked about Antonin Scalia’s criticism of the ruling that established the right for same-sex couples to marry. Again relying on the “Ginsburg rule,” Barrett declined to offer an opinion on Scalia’s criticism.

But she said, “I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.” Some commentators immediately took issue with Barrett’s use of the term “sexual preference” in reference to same-sex marriage.

The religious right may think they have won the fight with this religious extremist being on the SCOTUS.   But polls show that forcing this nomination is losing them a lot of support in the rest of the country.   People willing to give them space to have their view are now seeing how they not only want their place but take over everyone else’s.   This nomination will lead to court reform and more legislative laws enshrining legal rights for minorities the religious rights want to dominate and discriminate against.  The very way this is being done, the partisan nature of it, the pure power grab of the minority to force their will on the majority won’t stand.    But it will lead to a much more angry confrontations between people.  Hugs

6 thoughts on “Barrett Lobs Anti-LGBT Dog Whistle In Senate Hearing

    1. Hello Keith. I noticed that Barrett was able to say that interracial marriage was a super precedent but wouldn’t say that about legalized same gender sex or same gender marriage. Well we knew she was an religious ideolog. The country is screwed. Hugs


      1. Scottie, it would be idiotic thinking to overturn same-sex marriage. There is no standing. And, the country has moved past this. What is interesting about the SCOTUS Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1960s is SCOTUS was ahead of the country on the issue. Keith

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hello Keith. The majority country has moved past it, but not the US religious Taliban called evangelical Christians, most who are hard right Republicans. They have achieved some of their goals already. Their goal is to chip away at the same gender marriage right until it means nothing. Same with any rights, or discrimination protections. A two class system of marriage, one with full rights and one without them is what will happen first. In Texas the state professional board has removed protections which prevented discrimination against LGBTQ+ people by therapists. These people are driven by an unreasonable religious hatred of LGBTQ+ people. Look at Alito’s and Thomas’s writing in the denying of the kim Davis case. Both said that the court need to create rules saying it was OK to discriminate against same sex marriage if you held a sincere belief. Religion in this case trumps minority rights. I wonder if Thomas realizes his marriage to a white woman was once opposed by religious leaders and his marriage would have been targeted. Chief justice Roberts dissent in Obergefell. You have Kavanaugh who is a Catholic and Gorsuch who is a textualist so as it doesn’t say same gender marriage, or all people have a right to marry anyone in the constitution he will rule for religions which is mentioned. Add Bartlett and you have a solid court majority killing any real meaning for same gender marriage rights.


  1. “Use Of ‘Offensive’ Anti-Gay Dog Whistle”

    Actually, it is a ‘dog whistle’ for the depraved side of the aisle, as saying such doesn’t lift an eyebrow in any way, shape of form to those of us for whom depravity is anathema to our sensibilities.


    1. Hello Karl. You seem to think that your opinion gives you the right to hurl insults and to disparage others who do not agree with you. See the point is I don’t care what opinion you hold, it is not important as you have not give me any reason to care about your opinion. However what I do care about is my rights under the constitution of the US, which I served two tours in the US military to protect, are not interfered with due to someone’s choice of religious dogma. If a person wants to live their life based on the 2000 year old texts of myths and political fables that is their business. But they have no right to try to force me to live by their misguided backwards ideas. Your right to believe what you wish is your right. You do not have the right to force others to live by those beliefs.

      This is why it is a dog whistle.

      Karl there is a reason why the phrase sexual preference is misleading and incorrect. It creates the impression that a people actively choose their sexual / romantic arousal. It is now understood that sexual orientation is inborn, created in the womb. As is gender even if it is different from the sex organs. It is not a choice. Religion on the other hand is a choice.

      As for depravity one persons depravity is another persons enlighten. See it offends me that some people terrorize their children with threats of eternal pain of hell and mislead them on science which I think is really depraved. You would call it religion. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.