• About Us
  • Who Are We
  • Work With Us
Thursday, November 30, 2023
No Result
View All Result
NEWSLETTER
The Globe Post
39 °f
New York
44 ° Fri
46 ° Sat
40 ° Sun
41 ° Mon
No Result
View All Result
The Globe Post
No Result
View All Result
Home Featured

Unmasking the ‘Right to Harm:’ the US Supreme Court and the Attack on LGBTQ Lives

Jonathan Branfman by Jonathan Branfman
10/26/21
in Featured, Opinion
A man waves a rainbow flag as he rides by the US Supreme Court that released a decision that says federal law protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination on June 15, 2020 in Washington,DC.

A man waves a rainbow flag as he rides by the US Supreme Court on June 15, 2020 in Washington, DC. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Does the right to discriminate trump the right to live freely? Supreme Court Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito think so.

In 2015, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide with its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. But last Monday, Justices Thomas and Alito denounced that decision and called on the court to “fix” (overturn) it, which is a credible threat as Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings begin this week.

Thomas and Alito claim that Obergefell violates religious liberty by making it harder for “those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage … to participate in society.”

Thomas and Alito issued this condemnation specifically while ruling on the case against Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who was sued for refusing on Christian religious grounds to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Calling Davis “a victim of the court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision,” they take her case as proof that Obergefell disenfranchises people who hold “traditional Christian values.”

By making Kim Davis the face of their “Christians-in-trouble” narrative, Thomas and Alito expose an ugly truth: when they speak about “religious liberty,” they really mean the liberty to commit harm.

The ‘Right to Harm’ LGBTQ People 

This “right-to-harm” philosophy is the central but disguised premise behind most anti-LGBTQ backlash: the right-to-harm alleges that straight, religious conservatives deserve to endanger, impoverish, and obstruct LGBTQ lives. 

In turn, this right-to-harm contends that religious conservatives are grievously oppressed when they cannot inflict such damage; when they must watch LGBTQ peers freely pursue life, liberty, and happiness. 

Man holding up a colored LGBT flag
Photo: Sergei Supinksy/AFP

For religious conservatives, this right-to-harm philosophy demands the right to not only disapprove of LGBTQ people but also (borrowing Thomas and Alito’s own words) to actively block LGBTQ people from “participating in society.”

Kim Davis committed this obstruction by refusing to issue marriage licenses, and Thomas and Alito seek to expand that harm nationwide by delegalizing gay marriage.

This right-to-harm philosophy also fuels the backlash against transgender bathroom access, same-sex adoption, and LGBTQ employment and housing protections: all the legal rights that permit LGBTQ people to pursue their daily lives as straight and cisgender peers do.

Flipping Victim and Aggressor

This right-to-harm philosophy is so insidious because it falsely equates the right to harm with the right to exist. This false equivalence flips victim and aggressor: it aids straight, religious conservatives to cast themselves as violated underdogs even while they actively violate LGBTQ people.

Thomas and Alito exemplify this sleight-of-hand when they claim that Obergefell makes “being a public official with traditional Christian values … legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals,” thus branding “people of good will” like Kim Davis as “bigots.”

This claim ignores how Davis did actively discriminate: she wielded her governmental authority to block gay couples from accessing their marriage rights. Davis’ choice to discriminate is what violated the law, not her existence as a public official with religious beliefs. This choice to discriminate is precisely what Thomas and Alito seek to protect.

The Supreme Court turned away Kim Davis' case, but Thomas (joined by Alito) wrote a jaw-dropping rant taking direct aim at Obergefell and suggesting that SCOTUS must overturn the right to marriage equality in order to protect free exercise. https://t.co/qES8IZkw0U pic.twitter.com/F0zrYdBaeH

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 5, 2020

However, using the generic terms “rights” or “liberty” helps Thomas, Alito, and their conservative thought community to mask this specific desire to harm others. This phrasing also helps religious conservatives to falsely equate their own right to harm with LGBTQ people’s right to exist at all. 

For instance, Thomas and Alito conflate losing the power to obstruct LGBTQ marriages with losing one’s own right to wed. More broadly, the right-to-harm conflates the “pain” of letting LGBTQ people go unabused with the pain of losing one’s own home, job, child, rights, or life to queerphobia. 

Twisting the Language of Liberation

By authorizing straight conservatives to attack LGBTQ people “in self-defense,” this right-to-harm philosophy fits into a wider backlash movement called the “identity politics of the dominant.” 

The literary scholar Sally Robinson coined this phrase to explain how some white, straight, Christian, and/or male Americans seize language from the Black, feminist, and LGBTQ liberation movements, but twist that language to justify discrimination rather than ending it.

In this “identity politics of the dominant,” groups with the most power misrepresent themselves as America’s imperiled outcasts, allegedly beset by “nasty” women, queers, people of color, Jews, and immigrants.

Indeed, this flipped perception of victim and aggressor has lain at the core of conservative fury these past four years not only against LGBTQ people, but also against immigrants, refugees, and the Black Lives Matter and #MeToo movements.

Many branches of this wider conservative backlash implicitly claim a “right to harm” with impunity in the name of self-defense, as police regularly do to unarmed Black people of all genders.

Unmasking the Right-to-Harm Narrative

Like this wider backlash, the right-to-harm philosophy against LGBTQ people is not new. Back in 2013, the National Organization for Marriage spent $1.5 million on The Gathering Storm, an ad alleging that gay marriage would violate religious liberty. Actors tell the camera, “I’m afraid” that “my freedom will be taken away” by gay advocates aiming to “change the way I live,” like “forcing” a doctor to treat LGBTQ patients.

With this medical example, the ad prioritizes a straight doctor’s right to withhold healthcare — to let a patient suffer or die — over an LGBTQ person’s right to survive. Since The Gathering Storm aired, cases like Kim Davis’s have elevated the right-to-harm philosophy to greater prominence among American religious conservatives as “common sense,” and even (in Thomas and Alito’s view) as a legal imperative.

It is time for lawmakers and laypeople alike to unmask the right-to-harm narrative. When Thomas, Alito, Davis, or anyone else claims that LGBTQ civil rights violate their religious liberty, Americans with more integrity must answer: “You are not defending your right to exist, but claiming a right to harm, and you do not have that right.”

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Globe Post.
ShareTweet
Jonathan Branfman

Jonathan Branfman

Jonathan Branfman (@JonBranfman, www.jonathanbranfman.com), PhD is a visiting assistant professor of Jewish Studies at Cornell University, where he also specializes in Gender, Critical Race, and Media Studies. These views are his own.

Related Posts

Afghan refugees
Opinion

The Blessed and Cursed Randomness of Our Lives

by Stephen J. Lyons
October 25, 2023
A woman reacts as people gather at the site of the Ahli Arab hospital in central Gaza on October 18, 2023 in the aftermath of an overnight blast there
Middle East

US Says Israel ‘Not Responsible’ for Hospital Strike

by Staff Writer
October 19, 2023
Health care workers in Richmond, Texas. Photo: AFP
National

US Healthcare Industry Top Target of Cyber Attacks: Report

by Rojoef Manuel
September 29, 2023
Joe Biden
Opinion

The ‘Polycrisis’ Challenge: Biden’s Vision for Global Problem-Solving

by Greg Granger
September 26, 2023
US Authorities Seize Artworks Allegedly Stolen by Nazis
Art

US Authorities Seize Artworks Allegedly Stolen by Nazis

by Staff Writer
September 19, 2023
Pro-Trump protester in front of Capitol Hill.
Opinion

The Ominous (and Irresponsible) Chatter of a Civil War 

by Stephen J. Lyons
September 4, 2023
Next Post
China tests citizens for coronavirus.

China Tests Entire City for Virus as WHO Slams Herd Immunity Idea

US Air Force Base Poisoning Drinking Water Of Half a Million Japanese

US Air Force Base Poisoning Drinking Water Of Half a Million Japanese

Recommended

Dutch politician Geert Wilders

Xenophobia in the Netherlands? Unpacking the PVV’s Surprising Success

November 28, 2023
Ukraine war

NATO Chief Says ‘No Alternative’ to Helping Ukraine Stop Putin

November 27, 2023
Migrants stranded at the Finland border

Russia Warns of a ‘Crisis’ at Arctic Border With Finland

November 22, 2023
People march against climate change in Bordeaux, southwestern France, on October 13, 2018.

Earth to Warm Up to 2.9C Even With Current Climate Pledges: UN

November 20, 2023
A woman in Singapore checks her mobile

Singapore and Indonesia Launch Cross-Border QR-Code Payments

November 17, 2023
This illustration picture shows the AI (Artificial Intelligence) smartphone app ChatGPT surrounded by other AI Apps in Vaasa, on June 6, 2023

AI Images of White Faces Are Now ‘Hyper-Real’: Study

November 13, 2023

Opinion

Dutch politician Geert Wilders

Xenophobia in the Netherlands? Unpacking the PVV’s Surprising Success

November 28, 2023
Afghan refugees

The Blessed and Cursed Randomness of Our Lives

October 25, 2023
Joe Biden

The ‘Polycrisis’ Challenge: Biden’s Vision for Global Problem-Solving

September 26, 2023
Pro-Trump protester in front of Capitol Hill.

The Ominous (and Irresponsible) Chatter of a Civil War 

September 4, 2023
A bamboo-based design raises family homes safely above water levels to cope with raising water levels in Bangladesh.

The West Owes Climate Refugees Reparations Now

August 14, 2023
President Donald Trump in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House.

Boxing Day Comes to South Florida

July 5, 2023
Facebook Twitter

Newsletter

Do you like our reporting?
SUBSCRIBE

About Us

The Globe Post

The Globe Post is part of Globe Post Media, a U.S. digital news organization that is publishing the world's best targeted news sites.

submit oped

© 2018 The Globe Post

No Result
View All Result
  • National
  • World
  • Business
  • Interviews
  • Lifestyle
  • Democracy at Risk
    • Media Freedom
  • Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Columns
    • Book Reviews
    • Stage
  • Submit Op-ed

© 2018 The Globe Post