Queer couples raced to get married before Trump confirmed far-right Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett
Queer couples in America spent the weekend racing to get married before before Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the US Supreme Court, fearing she could roll back marriage equality.
Anti-LGBT+ Catholic judge Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court on Monday (October 26), with the Republican controlled Senate rushing through the appointment of the Trump nominee just one week before the presidential election on November 3.
Barrett’s anti-LGBT+ record, including her membership of the Catholic group People of Praise which kicks members out for having gay sex and her ties to listed anti-LGBT+ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, has sparked fears that she could roll back marriage equality.
In response, Tori Jameson, a non-binary, queer, sex-positive pastor who serves the LGBT+ community in St Louis, Missouri, decided to do something while there was still time.
They said: “She has made statements against Roe, against immigration. I worry about our rights being rolled back if she gets in. But I don’t have a lot of political power. I’m just a community pastor.”
The four days of free wedding ceremonies saw 16 queer couples get married, while florists, bakers, photographers and other vendors offered their services for free.
Jameson added: “We are going to take care of our own. You can be hateful, but there is an opportunity here to celebrate love and be joyful.”
Fears are mounting among the queer community that the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett could undo marriage equality.
On October 4, a week after Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, two conservative Supreme Court justices launched a chilling attack on the 2015 equal marriage ruling.
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote in a statement that Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that legalised same-sex marriage in all 50 states, had “ruinous consequences for religious liberty”.
“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws,” the pair wrote.
“It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law.
“But it is quite another when the court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the free exercise clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.”
Chase Strangio of the ACLU explained that the statement suggests the justices “are eager to overturn Obergefell already — even though it is only five years old”.
He added: “The brazenness of the rightward direction of the court is a threat to even the most basic expectation of legal protection. What we can expect is the continued erosion of legal protections gained over the past century.”