Gorsuch’s opinion falls right in line with anti-LGBTQ attacks from the Trump Administration, would turn back clock on LGBTQ rights

NEW YORK – GLAAD, the world’s largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization, today questioned U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch’s true stance on equal rights for LGBTQ people after authoring the dissent for the Pavan v. Smith case yesterday, which granted married same-sex couples the right to have names of both parents on their child’s birth certificates. Justice Gorsuch’s choice to be the lead in the dissent opinion is the latest example in his long history of anti-LGBTQ activism, which GLAAD pointed out during his confirmation process last winter.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States yesterday ruled in favor of the LGBTQ couple from Arkansas in a 6-3 decision. In fact, Pavan v. Smith could be viewed as a compass on how the nation’s highest court could land on the upcoming Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, which questions a person’s ability to use religion as a weapon to openly discriminate against LGBTQ Americans based on so-called “religious exemption” grounds. The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it would take up this case in the fall.

GLAAD urges the media and Americans to highlight Justice Gorsuch’s opinion on Pavan v. Smith because it could be an indication on where he will fall in the Masterpiece case. Further, Gorsuch’s dissent falls directly in line with the Trump Administration and its pattern of eraring LGBTQ Americans from the fabric of this nation. For a look at the administration’s anti-LGBTQ activism since the start of Donald Trump’s presidency, check out GLAAD’s Trump Accountability Project.
 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch’s Anti-LGBTQ Activism

• Argued that certain minority civil rights issues, like marriage equality, should be settled through elections or legislatures, not the courts.
• Signaled willingness to allow religious employers to use their personal beliefs to sidestep federal law in lower court decisions in the famous Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases
• Ruled numerous times against the transgender community, including a refusal to provide healthcare to a transgender woman who was incarcerated and against a transgender woman who filed an employment discrimination lawsuit.
• Described LGBT rights as merely part of liberals’ social agenda. “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide…”
• Described as “an ardent defender of religious liberties and pluralistic accommodations for religious adherents” and “a natural successor to Scalia in adopting a pro-religion conception of the establishment clause.”
• Defended keeping military recruiters on campus despite the military’s discriminatory stance on LGBTQ soldiers.
• Endorsed by and “good friends” with National Organization for Marriage co-founder Prof. Robert George.
• Endorsed by author of Colorado’s same-sex marriage ban, former ADF Senior Counsel Mike Norton who said “He’d be great for America.”
• Endorsed by ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence, “I think if the president nominates him, it would be good.”

###