Kick back with a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the spectacle of right-wing homophobes railing against the conservative Supreme Court. How sweet it is.
In 2016 they forged a Faustian pact with Trump. They agreed to support the amoral lying philanderer in exchange for the chance to craft a high court that would deliver an unbroken string of victories. Conservative Christian evangelicals, in particular, lusted at the opportunity to impose their reactionary morality on an increasingly diverse, pluralistic nation. And Trump duly delivered – or so it seemed – by appointing two justices with the right credentials.
But then came yesterday’s historic 6-3 ruling – penned by Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch – which says it’s illegal under federal law to fire a gay or transgender worker. Worse yet, Gorsuch was joined in the majority by chief justice and Republican appointee John Roberts. Gorsuch says the 1964 Civil Rights Act bans discrimination on any basis of “sex” – end of story, game over. That’s how the law is written, and, in Gorsuch’s words, “ours is a society of written laws.”
And in response, the sputtering right-wingers sound a lot like Homer Simpson: “D’oh!”
Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Network, says that Gorsuch sold out to “the college campuses and editorial boards.” Radio host Mark Levin says that “Roberts no longer pretends to be a judge; now Gorsuch has left his robe behind as well.” Another right-wing radio host, Michael Knowles, is freaking out that gay workers are now equal to straight workers; he fumes that Gorsuch “has redefined the most fundamental aspect of our nature,” which automatically makes Gorsuch one of “the worst jurists in the history of the United States.” And I’d be remiss not to mention, of course, that Trump’s lawyers argued in front of the high court that it was perfectly fine to fire gay people based on who they love.
So pass that popcorn. The law has finally caught up to basic human rights.
Who could possibly oppose the idea of protecting gay workers from discrimination? Only two overlapping groups: right-wing homophobes and elected Republicans in Washington. Virtually everyone else has long supported equality in the workplace. But for three decades, the anti-gay cadre thwarted progress.
Does anyone remember the Employment Non-Discrimination Act – better known as ENDA? I was amazed yesterday to see virtually no mention of ENDA in the press coverage of the Supreme Court ruling. Gay groups, allied with Democrats and a smattering of virtuous Republicans, had repeatedly pointed out – since the early 1990s – that gays were unfairly excluded from federal civil rights laws. ENDA was the proposed solution, to ensure that gays on the job had the same workplace rights as everyone else.
The problem was, ENDA couldn’t surmount the right-wing hurdles on Capitol Hill. In 1996 it fell short in the Senate by one vote. In 2007 it passed the Democratic House, but the Senate failed to act and President Bush threatened to veto it anyway. In 2013 it passed the Senate, President Obama promised to sign it, but it died in the Republican House, where GOPers seemed to heed the conservative Washington Times’ warning that ENDA “promotes sexual freedom in the workplace.”
And all along, the American people said they were fine with workplace equality. In 2008, according to Gallup, 80 percent signaled thumbs-up. That same year, when Republican pollster Alex Lundry asked people whether they’d support a pro-gay anti-discrimination law, 68 percent of registered voters -including 56 percent of Republican voters – said yes. And earlier this month, according to a CBS News poll, 82 percent of Americans – including 71 percent of Republicans – said that gay, lesbian and bisexual people should be protected under civil rights law.
So it’s nice when the law aligns with popular policy. And Gorsuch’s ruling may well have ripple effects that would make homophobes fume anew. With gays and transgenders officially covered by federal civil rights law, the Trump regime could be thwarted in its current attempt to limit transgender coverage under Obamacare. At minimum, that scheme will be harder to defend in court.
Even better: The right-wing moralists who forged their ’16 deal with Trump – hoping to slam the brakes on fairness, equality, and inclusion – may well be wondering today whether they should bother supporting a president who hasn’t delivered his side of the bargain. And dampening of evangelical enthusiasm, during the run-up to November, is most welcome.
But for now, let’s simply celebrate what happened yesterday. In the words of constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, “the decision is a shining moment in the midst of all too much darkness.” True that. Any loss for Trump and his enablers is a shaft of sunshine.