USA TODAY International Edition
Sexual orientation isn’t a preference
Judge Barrett should have known better
Judge Amy Coney Barrett stepped into a queer hornet’s nest during her confirmation hearings to become the next Supreme Court justice. Asked about her views on discrimination against LGBTQ people, she replied: “I have no agenda, and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”
Then the internet erupted in flames. That’s because Barrett used two words — sexual preference — that LGBTQ people find offensive, and which disregard the credible scientific research showing that sexual orientation is not a preference or a choice. It is an immutable part of our identity, and that’s true whether a person is straight or gay.
I recall having a similar discussion with my parents several years ago, when they were about to become octogenarians. They had two LGBTQ children and wanted to understand the distinction between “preference” and “orientation.” I told them the New York Times had recently updated its style guide to say: “Never sexual preference, which carries the disputed implication that sexuality is a matter of choice.”
I could see they remained puzzled so I asked them a question: When did you know that you were heterosexual? As though ringing the buzzer on “Jeopardy,” they answered simultaneously: “We’ve always been this way.” Exactly, you did not choose to be straight.
And I did not choose to be gay. Ditto for the millions of LGBTQ people in this country who were shocked to hear Barrett use the term, especially after she refused to tell senators if she would uphold the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling affirming the constitutional right to same- sex marriage.
Dog whistle signals
Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff in that landmark case, told me Barrett’s use of the phrase “leads me to believe ( she) chooses to ignore the scientific proof that sexual orientation and gender identity are normal, innate parts of the human condition, not choices…. I believe this is further proof of her antipathy toward the LGBTQ+ community.” In fact, “sexual preference” is what’s considered a dog whistle, coded language to a specific audience. For instance, the anti- LGBTQ Alliance Defending Freedom regularly uses the term.
So yes, words matter.
So, too, does Barrett’s actual record. In previous years she’s spoken five times to the ADF. She claimed not to know all of their positions. And from 2015- 2017 she sat on the board of directors of an Indiana school that opposed same- sex marriage and still does.
Barrett did offer a meek apology later when pressed. “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,” she said.
Democrats from time to time have also wrongly used “sexual preference.” That includes Sen. Dianne Feinstein, 87, Sen. Dick Durbin, 75, and former vice president Joe Biden, 77, as well as the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month at age 87. Let’s face it, they’re all a lot older than Barrett, and grew up in a vastly different era. And where they stand on same- sex marriage and equal rights for LGBTQ people has not been up for debate, a crucial difference from Barrett.
Fear for our rights
Was Barrett’s use of the phrase willful ignorance? Her prep time was rushed to ensure her nomination is voted on before Election Day, true. Still, ignorance is a hard card to play. “LGBTQ 101” was a hot- button issue at these hearings, and her handlers would have advised her to avoid “preference.”
I think back to my parents who at 80 didn’t fully understand changing terminology, even though they fully supported my lesbian sister in her marriage, and mine as well. It only took me one shot to convince them that “sexual preference” was offensive. But Barrett graduated from Notre Dame Law School first in her class and, at 48, came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. Even if she says she didn’t know, she ought to have known.
Perhaps if I knew Barrett’s favorite flavor of jam — explaining that is a choice, while her attraction to her husband is a core part of her identity — I could help drive home why so many are outraged by her language, and fear for our marriages and other rights.
Steven Petrow, a writer on civility and manners and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the author of five etiquette books.
WANT TO COMMENT? Have Your Say at letters@ usatoday. com, @ usatodayopinion on Twitter and facebook. com/ usatodayopinion. Comments are edited for length and clarity. Content submitted to USA TODAY may appear in print, digital or other forms. For letters, include name, address and phone number. Letters may be mailed to 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA, 22108.