Home | About | Donate

'This Is a Dog Whistle': Barrett Condemned for Implying That Being LGBTQ Is a Choice and Saying Working With Anti-Gay Hate Group Was 'Wonderful'

What frightens me is how cowardly most of you are in imagining solutions to this judicial farce. Why this dedication to the procedure & tradition of confirming justices for life???

Once we smash Trump’s supporters (that’s the key; nothing else can Progress if you’re not going to Man Up and stand up to those terrorists), we overturn this lady’s confirmation - and all the other confirmed Trump judges, too. To hell with “procedure” - have the Fascists “played by the traditional rules” these past few decades? So, then, why are you???


Noticing an increasing tendency for literal loud and unambiguous statements of bigotry to be called “dog whistles.” We’re past dog whistle politics, and we have been for years now.


It’s bizarre how even educated people refer to supreme court judges as ‘Justice.’ These people are power getters and wouldn’t know justice if it hit them over the head

1 Like

That was the tell, the slip up. Despite all the stock cliched answers about proceeding judiciously, this shows ideology not evidence guides decisions.

Hi oldie:
I wonder what ms Barrett will do if she gets elected and destroys, or tries to destroy the rights of gay people. It seems so odd to me that so many said to be Christian people are so intolerant. If god is said to make no mistakes----how can any human be a “wrong” human?

She will not, nor will any other supreme court justice remove freedoms from any particular group.
Besides, pope Francis said = “Who am I to Judge”.

Some named Christians hate Catholics for example.
Youtube has plenty of this and what is hilarious is that they use old testament bible quotes to push on this and never from New testament.

Which is a good reason to spend valuable time in the new testament.
Catholics do have the easiest religion in the whole world.
All ya gotta do is love god and your neighbor as yourself.
Plus, practice (do) the beatitudes.

This is ultra progressive = commie, pinko types.

Hi oIdie:
I am worrying about the roIIbacks of the IegisIation that make sense for AII peopIe.
Some of ruIes for voting seem to be disappearing.I read that the GOP in CA is putting up phony drop off boxes, and CA already has Iaws against doing that —they are ignoring the rights for voting----- AIthough----maybe they wiII aII get arrested ------perhaps spend some time in the same jaiI as immigrants? : ) A EARNING EXPERIENCE is a necessity for aduIts who believe that they don’t have to foIIow the Iaws that other voters have to foIIow!

1 Like

Barrett misspoke.

She meant to declare that all members of the LGBT community are sexual deviants and ungodly abominations … while clutching her pearls.

1 Like

I’m not sure of T’s, but most Gs and Ls are manifested in childhood. That’s the best evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. To the extent that it is genetic, it is not a single gene phenomenon, like sickle cell anemia. So it has to be more complex, involving numerous types of genes, perhaps even with environmental factors.

I agree with you – Overturn everything that Trump did – including Kavanaugh, Gorsuck
and Barrrett –

Either Gorsuch or Barrett were illegal – two different explanations for proceeding contradict
one another – one is wrong – and one of them should be OUT –

If we remove Barrett – call it defense of Separation of Church & State which failed to happen
at her nomination.

Make it a “recall” –

or an Impeachment of Judge/Judges due to mental instability of president drumpf.

and – if anyone is interested …

Pelosi was wrong in taking Barrett’s religion off the table –

In fact she was doubly wrong as she had delivered no active plan to defend

And I fear for the younger generation that she seemed to be telling them that
religion is of a higher order than government of the people –

In fact, it is religion which must answer to our “people’s government” – for the welfare
of children in the care of the Catholic Church now – any sexual abuse must be reported
to police/authorities –

PLUS, we have every right to criticize, question and challenge and demonstrate against
our own government – and we have just the same rights to criticize, question and challenge
and demonstrate against religions - any and all of them –

Our young American citizens need to know and understand that.

People no longer fear religion as they once did – ?
Not sure – the difference was at the time when religions had armies there couldn’t be any
criticism of them. The violence/tortures of the Crusades, Inquisitions, Burnings at the Stake
made clear the mindset of the Vatican and its aim to rule the world by force. It was also
illegal at one time to laugh at a Catholic priest walking on the streets of Italy.

The armies may have disappeared but religion continues to try to gain influence over our
governments and our democracies. Separation of Church & State is a huge threat to them
as they want and need government funding – and authentication

Consider this practice of the cult that Barrett belongs to –

Reminds me a great deal of W Bush telling America that “god” told him to attack
Afghanistan - and then later, “god” told him to go to war against Iraq.

Wow – who can beat what “god” tells someone – ?

Prophesy would be an interesting tool to claim for someone on the SC –

1 Like

That is the correct answer when looking at this issue from a legal rights perspective. From a scientific perspective, it is still an interesting question, thought I don’t agree that identical twins should have been deliberately split for adoption to allow for more nature/nature study (I’m not positive this happened, but I recall reading something similar in the past).

On the actual use of the words “sexual preference”, I’m with Kyle Kulinski that the left is shooting themselves in the foot on this one. There is no way to show that much outrage that Hirono showed and not be labeled a hypocrite when there are so many uses of this term by Democrats. His video is at ~https://youtu.be/9ngbaydfPxU

For a text reference, I’ll use National Review (which I rarely agree with in opinion, but they seem reasonably accurate on facts, ~https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/democrats-smear-barrett-for-saying-sexual-preference-a-term-recently-used-by-biden-and-ginsburg/):

Was the term actually offensive? Joe Biden used it in May 2020. Ruth Bader Ginsburg used it in 2017. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also used it in 2017. Democratic members of the judiciary committee Dick Durbin and Richard Blumenthal have said “sexual preference” during speeches on the Senate floor in the past decade. You can find its more recent usage in the Huffington Post and The Atlantic.

A gay-rights advocate used the term in a September 25, 2020 interview with the gay-rights magazine The Advocate. As far as I can tell, no one complained about any of this.

I’d love to see Barrett fail to be confirmed, though I don’t understand how that will come to pass - criticizing her use of “sexual preference” certainly isn’t going to do a damned thing - nobody is changing their vote based on that and in my opinion, progressives will get no useful mileage out of it in any other way. On the other hand, Whitehouse’s speech which I heard some of on democracy now was magnificent.

1 Like

I think this hits the nail on the head. If there’s anything this campaign has taught me, it is social media outrages aren’t real life. My feeling is one reason Biden is doing well is because he’s old, social media isn’t a big part of his life, and he’s not jumping from the latest internet outrage to the next. That has created an aura of stability that even some of my Republican leaning family members appreciate.


And to @dara

I agree that we are so often being distracted by minutia disguised as outrage that it dulls our response to real outrage. We as a society cater to victimhood, real or imagined, or real but blown out of proportion. We no longer seek to strengthen the weak, or cure those that hurt. We try to accommodate the irrational as long as it is backed up by sufficient moaning and groaning, and then reshape society into insular bubbles of protected post-victimized individuality.

I applaud individuality, but as a form of inclusion of the individual into a full society, not exclusion of everything else as a form of protectionism. We can’t all follow everyone else’s rules all of the time. It places ones own self as subordinate to and/or responsible for all of humanities differences and suffering.

Strengthening others to help them aids all of humanity. Weakening all of humanity to accommodate others does no one any good. It reduces us to the simplest common denominator.

Empathy is not bending reality to appease a pseudo-victim, or cater to a personal grievance. That is impossible in a world where everyone has a scar from the distant societal past, their own past, the present, or possible ones from the future. Empathy is being demanded, and that is not how it works.

We need to strengthen each other and work toward a better future for all, not weaken all of humanity in response to a misguided guilt laid at our feet.