Hitchin Nub News aims to support our community, promoting shops, businesses, charities, clubs and sports groups.

We highlight many of these businesses, organisations and individuals regularly in a feature called 'Up Close in Hitchin' as well as fascinating opinion pieces from our trusted cohort of Nub News contributors.

For today's opinion piece here's our regular Sunday contributor Zac Cash as he comments on the forthcoming US election and what it means for the LGBT community. [.B]

...............................

What Amy Coney Barrett's imminent Supreme Court appointment could mean for the United States' LGBTQ+ community

When we talk of the Western world, what do we think of? Aspects of culture such as theatre, music and food?

The ways in which we view both the world and ourselves, which are influenced by religion? Political notions such as democracy and freedom of speech?

Or what about being able to love who we like, without fear of persecution, hate, fear or feelings of disdain?

This belief seems to be integral within our constantly developing, dynamic and diverse societies, with many taking it as part and parcel of our accepting and 'woke' communities in which we live.

Furthermore, crucial legislation such as the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in the United States, and the 2013 Same Sex Couples Act in the UK enabled these beliefs to become the prevalent ideas that we defend and hold dear to today.

However, all this could be about to change. On September 18, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died from complications relating to pancreatic cancer.

Her death left a gaping hole in the US Supreme Court that needed to be filled. Democrats were anxious to wait until the result of the US election which would decide the allegiance of the new Justice, as a Republican appointment by Trump in the closing weeks of his first term would sway the Supreme Court heavily in the favour of the Republicans.

Many key Republicans even went as far as promising that no decision would be made until the result of the election was clear, yet have contradicted their statements by supporting a Republican candidate.

One example of this is Senator and president pro tempora (the second highest ranking official of the United States Senate) Charles Grassley of Iowa, who laid down a principle that Supreme Court nominees should not be advanced in election years, yet said two weeks ago that he would vote to confirm a Trump pick.

Trump's candidate came in the form of Amy Coney Barrett. Coney Barrett is a favourite amongst the Christian right and the social conservatives, and her association with these groups is supported by her strong anti-abortion views, her criticism of Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act and her literal approach when reading and interpreting legal texts.

Whilst these views may be worrying to Democrats and those of a liberal inclination, the growing worry within the 'majority of acceptance' within the United States is what Coney Barrett's seemingly inevitable inclusion within the Supreme Court could mean to the rights and lives of the LGBTQ+ community within the United States.

In an earlier part of the article I mentioned the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which required all states to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples and to recognise same-sex marriage.

However, that ruling is now being put into question after two Republican and incredibly Conservative-minded Supreme Court Justices named Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas suggested that marriage equality, and thus the Obergefell ruling, should be overturned.

They argued that the ruling did not respect individual state legislature and that it restricted religious autonomy and beliefs opposing same-sex marriage, with Alito stating that "Obergefell enables courts to brand religious adherents who believe marriage should be between a man and a women as bigots… and it makes their religious liberty easy to dismiss".

It is believed that the impending appointment of Coney Barrett would develop these claims into something even more substantial, with the Obergefell ruling potentially being overturned and same-sex couples being stripped of their rights to marry. Camilla Taylor, who fought for the Obergefell ruling says that she is "absolutely concerned for the rights of LGBTQ+ people" and that marriage equality is a "top issue that has been targeted by the wealthy far-right activists that we have battled all along".

But why is Coney Barrett viewed as such a catalytic figure within the debate? Firstly, she has very public ties to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a far-right religious group that has been at the forefront of the fight against marriage freedom and equality within the United States.

The organisation argued against employment discrimination protections, transgender bathroom access, and argued for the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which involved a baker who refused to serve a same-sex couple who wanted a cake for their wedding day. Coney Barrett has done five paid speaking engagements for the group since 2011.

Additionally, this week, Coney Barrett referred to sexual orientation as a "preference".

This set off alarm bells across the legal community that supports LGBTQ+ rights, as they feared that Coney Barrett could thus deem sexual orientation as an individual choice, and therefore not receive protection under the law.

She has used deliberately misgendered transgender women, categorising those women as "males" and stating that they "should not be allowed into female bathrooms… especially with young girls present".

Whether Coney Barrett will support Alito and Thomas' argument, either publicly and privately, it is yet to be seen.

But many believe that the fervid opposition against such proposals will keep LGBTQ+ rights safe. Gillian Bransetter, a relations manager at the National Women's Law Centre, says that the Justices' juxtaposition is not only inaccurate, but a slippery slope into ultimate defeat and rebuttal.

Bransetter states that "They're hoping that any audience will buy into that framework… and seek to alienate women of any kind".

Her words echoed progressions of the past: "When you define people's functions in society down to their biology, you use the same tools that a patriarchal system has used to oppress women for most of their history".

It is the aim of those such as Bransetter within the United States' legal system to ensure that no such injustice ever occurs again.