Judge Amy Coney Barrett is eminently qualified and has come across as articulate and impressive in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings so far. This much is obvious not just from watching Barrett’s performance but from seeing how far critics are having to stretch to try and conjure up reasons to derail her nomination.
As one might expect, Barrett was asked about gay marriage and gay rights during Tuesday’s hearing. She answered in response that she has “never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.” The judge was clearly trying to convey a positive message but used the word “preference” when she really meant “orientation.”
This small slip of the tongue is hardly offensive to serious people with real problems. So, naturally, the activist Left melted down over it.
“Sexual preference,” a term used by Justice Barrett, is offensive and outdated. The term implies sexuality is a choice. It is not. News organizations should not repeat Justice Barrett’s words without providing that important context.
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 13, 2020
I am not surprised that ACB used the language of “sexual preference”. She is a right-wing ideologue and we know where she stands. The question we should be asking is how we can stop a system that is allowing her to be placed in this kind of position of power for life.
— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) October 13, 2020
The religious right often refuses to use ‘sexual orientation,’ fearing that it will legitimize homosexuality. https://t.co/4laWCosUU6
— Slate (@Slate) October 13, 2020
Then, Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Cory Booker of New Jersey actually confronted Barrett over it. Hirono accused the nominee of using “outdated and offensive” language.
Let me make clear – sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term.
To suggest sexual orientation is a choice? It’s not. It’s a key part of a person’s identity.
The LGBTQ+ community should be concerned with #WhatsAtStake with Judge Barrett on the Supreme Court. pic.twitter.com/4TWyATMX0Y
— Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) October 13, 2020
In keeping with the gracious and respectful demeanor she has demonstrated throughout the confirmation process so far, Barrett responded by apologizing and clarifying her remarks. “I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense to the LGBTQ community,” Barrett said. “So, if I did, I greatly apologize for that. I simply meant to be referring to Obergefell’s ruling with respect to same-sex marriage.”
Following remarks from Sen. @maziehirono, Judge Amy Coney Barrett says: “I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community. So if I did, I greatly apologize for that.”
Full video: https://t.co/WAojeywoZW#SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/PP5FFDWMRs
— CSPAN (@cspan) October 13, 2020
Being gay is not a choice, so it is more accurate to use the term “sexual orientation” over “sexual preference.” (Even though both can be read to convey some degree of choice.) Still, a small verbal slip is not an anti-gay hate crime. The outrageous response to Barrett’s words, despite her apology and clarification, is disingenuous.
The term “sexual preference” wasn’t considered offensive by just about anyone until the moment Barrett said it, and liberals thought they had a potent line of attack.
Don’t believe me? Just ask yourself why there was no outrage when Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden used it a few months ago. If “sexual preference” was a “slur” and “anti-gay dogwhistle,” surely critics would have spoken out against Biden as well.
They did not. In fact, even the late liberal stalwart Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg used the term as recently as 2017. As Reason’s Robby Soave notes, this term has been wildly deployed even in gay media outlets without any outrage.
How interesting. pic.twitter.com/zSQXbusZXn
— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) October 14, 2020
Reasonable people, whether they share Barrett’s ideology or not, ought to dismiss this faux outrage for the partisan smear job that it is. But arguably more disturbing than the smear itself was the way that in Orwellian fashion, politically correct institutions, including the Merriam-Webster dictionary, tried to silently change the term’s definition and act as if it had always been viewed as offensive.
We should never accept such blatant attempts to twist language to control thought and retroactively condemn speech. As far as left-wing gay activists and Democrats are concerned, if the state of your “fight for human rights” is reduced to petty squabbling over minor word choice, it’s time to move on from your victimhood narrative once and for all.
Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a Washington Examiner contributor and host of the Breaking Boundaries podcast.
