• About Us
  • Who Are We
  • Work With Us
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
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 Opinion

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

Jonathan Branfman by Jonathan Branfman
10/14/20
in 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

Medical personnel is given the Pfizer-Biontech Covid-19 corona virus vaccine at the Favoriten Clinic in Vienna, Austria, on December 27, 2020
Opinion

The Vaccine Battle Highlights the Need to Communicate Science

by Lori Lennon
January 19, 2021
President Donald Trump in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House.
Opinion

Threatening Democracy: The Choice Between Progress and Extremism Has Never Been So Clear

by Peter Bloom
January 13, 2021
Jake Angeli speaks to a US Capitol Police officer.
Opinion

American Democracy Will Prevail

by Saad Hafiz
January 13, 2021
Pro-Trump protester in front of Capitol Hill.
Opinion

Riots at Capitol Hill: Darkness Before the Dawn?

by Stacy Gallin
January 8, 2021
Playing the Un-Naming Game in New York Is Harder Than It Seems
Featured

Pandenomics: The High Cost of Living While Undocumented in the United States

by Benjamin Waddell
December 22, 2020
People holding up banners to defend DACA.
Featured

DACA’s Return and the Need for Action From Incoming Biden-Harris Administration

by Alessandra Bazo Vienrich
December 16, 2020
Next Post
China tests citizens for coronavirus.

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

US Army Base Poisoning Drinking Water Of Half a Million Japanese

US Army Base Poisoning Drinking Water Of Half a Million Japanese

Recommended

Medical personnel is given the Pfizer-Biontech Covid-19 corona virus vaccine at the Favoriten Clinic in Vienna, Austria, on December 27, 2020

The Vaccine Battle Highlights the Need to Communicate Science

January 19, 2021
Beggars

Rights Court Condemns Switzerland for Fining Beggar

January 19, 2021
Central African Republic's Faustin Archange Touadéra.

Two UN Troops Killed in C. Africa as President’s Re-election Confirmed

January 19, 2021
Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny.

UN Rights Office Urges Navalny’s Immediate Release

January 18, 2021
The filing was submitted by Justice Department lawyers on Thursday, January 14.

US Rioters Sought to ‘Capture and Assassinate’ Lawmakers at Capitol: Prosecutors

January 15, 2021
Biden proposes raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Biden Unveils $1.9 Tn Economic Plan as US Recovery Buckles

January 14, 2021

Opinion

Medical personnel is given the Pfizer-Biontech Covid-19 corona virus vaccine at the Favoriten Clinic in Vienna, Austria, on December 27, 2020

The Vaccine Battle Highlights the Need to Communicate Science

January 19, 2021
President Donald Trump in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House.

Threatening Democracy: The Choice Between Progress and Extremism Has Never Been So Clear

January 13, 2021
Jake Angeli speaks to a US Capitol Police officer.

American Democracy Will Prevail

January 13, 2021
Pro-Trump protester in front of Capitol Hill.

Riots at Capitol Hill: Darkness Before the Dawn?

January 8, 2021
Volunteers are given the Moderna vaccine on August 5, 2020, in Detroit, Michigan.

Who’s First-in-Line for the Vaccine? A Classic Problem in Medical Ethics

December 30, 2020
A sorghum farmer inspects her small grains crop thriving in the dry conditions in March in the Mutoko rural area of Zimbabwe

The 10-Year Food Systems Revolution Must Start Now

December 22, 2020
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