S.C. Says Constitution Allows Discrimination Against Women So Gay Discrimination Is Okay


Shame is a human emotion manifest by a painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, or ridiculous done by oneself. There are human beings who lack that feeling and are typically blatant racists or, really, any kind of blatant bigot. Americans have seen a preponderance of shameless bigots since the people elected an African American man as President, and besides openly championing discrimination against people of color, the LGBT community, and non-Christians, women have been singled out as pariahs the religious patriarchs have openly targeted for second class status.

Since it has become a badge of honor among Republicans to blatantly discriminate against women in the workplace, reproductive rights, access to healthcare, and equal rights, it was little surprise that South Carolina Republicans used an anti-women agenda as reason to discriminate against gays. As the Supreme Court is beginning to hear arguments for and against gays and lesbians marrying the person they love, different groups on each side of the argument have filed ‘amicus briefs’ with the Court advocating for a ruling in their favor.

South Carolina Republicans joined the fray and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court defending their right to openly discriminate against the gay community based on the long history of Republicans discriminating against women. The crux of South Carolina’s argument in support of discriminating against gays is that if it constitutionally permissible to discriminate against women, then it is perfectly legal to discriminate against gays. Where most people would never admit they target women for discrimination, and get away with it, South Carolina Republicans shamelessly used it as legal precedent to express their religion-based bigotry toward the gay community.

In the amicus brief filed by South Carolina’s attorney general against gays having the right to marry the person they love, the bigot argued that the High Court should follow the “original sexist intent” of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. He claims the authors of the 14th Amendment intended to maintain discriminatory laws against women being equal with men under the law, so it is all the legal precedent religious bigots need to discriminate against gays. Yes, it is as despicable an argument as any evangelical bigot has come up with thus far, but it is also relatively accurate; if it was still 1868.

The problem is that when the 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution, it did not include equality for women any more than it provided true equality under the law for people of color. In a sense, if the so-called ‘constitutional originalists‘ on the High Court rule according to what religious patriarchs intended in the 14th Amendment, then yes, gays have no more claim to equal rights under the law in 2015 than women did in 1868. According to congressional records, the dirty patriarchs drafting the amendment were fiercely adamant that according to the 10th Amendment, states could “not be forced to recognize married women as independent human beings with rights of their own.” They were the subservient property of their husbands and simple birth machines relegated to cleaning chamber pots and preparing meals.

The primary author of the amendment, a patriarchal douchebag named John Bingham gave his unwavering assurance to other patriarchal congressmen that they “need not be alarmed that the amendment would alter the ‘condition’ of married women.” In fact, another anti-woman cretin, Samuel Shellagarger, promised that under the amendment’s ‘equal protection‘ clause, the 10th Amendment still guaranteed that “states could deprive women of the right to sue, enter into contracts, or testify in a court of law;” women were already denied the right to vote because of their “condition.”

Since the 14th Amendment has been in effect, the High Court has often held that states laws putting women at a clear disadvantage receive “heightened scrutiny” under the equal protection clause; including the current conservative court that one hopes would strike down laws forbidding married women from owning property, voting, or entering into legal contracts. However, one seriously wonders how much the current conservative patriarchs on the Court are willing to allow women, much less gays, their equal rights according to recent rulings that disallowed women from filing lawsuits as a class, or use contraceptives without their evangelical and Catholic employers’ permission.

The frightening aspect of how the conservatives on the court interpret South Carolina’s amicus brief is that they may adopt and restore the sexist and patriarchal “originalist” interpretation of the 14th Amendment and not only disallow gays from enjoying equal protections under the law, but open the door for a rash of Republican state-sponsored sexism the likes American women have never witnessed.

It is worth noting that most Republicans do not support women choosing their own reproductive rights, receiving equal pay for equal work or even entering the workforce, and in many cases believe women should be sequestered at home in constant birthing mode and in servitude to the man of the house. These beliefs did not originate with the authors of the 14th Amendment, they are longstanding biblical principles Republicans still adhere to in 21st Century America.

That South Carolina would have the temerity to use an originalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and its clearly anti-women tenets, as precedent to discriminate against the gay community is not only shameless, it informs just how bigoted Republicans are toward gays. One hopes the conservatives on the Supreme Court reject South Carolina’s blatantly anti-women argument to justify discriminating against LGBT people, but with the so-called “constitutional originalists” on the Court, it is entirely possible they will reject the “broader constitutional principles” of the 14th Amendment and adopt the 1868 concept that, Hell no, all Americans are not equal under the law; particularly if they are women or gay.

h/t slate

17 Replies to “S.C. Says Constitution Allows Discrimination Against Women So Gay Discrimination Is Okay”

  1. “The frightening aspect of how the conservatives on the court interpret South Carolina’s amicus brief is that they may adopt and restore the sexist and patriarchal “originalist” interpretation…open the door for a rash of Republican state-sponsored sexism the likes American women have never witnessed.”

    So true. It’s almost like they admired those Islamic countries- you know the ones where women can’t drive, leave the house w/o a male relative escort.

  2. All these 19th century males should be treeted for what they are BARN HARD ANIMALS with lesser mentality than any barn yard animal, what is wrong with these neanderthals, could it be drugs or the polluted air these kochsuckers breath or kock brother brain washing classes, they are the dumbest people ever hatched on the face of the earth. A woman gave you life and this is how you repay her, you people don’t deserve living with humans.

  3. There’s a huge disconnect in a country that continues to pass laws showing it’s become more & more accepting of marriage equality while simultaneously passing laws making a woman’s right to make her own medical care decisions more & more illegal each day.

    While I’m for equal rights & marriage equality for all, period, it seems people in the US mistakenly believe that gender & racial equality are matters that were settled decades ago. As we continue to take one step forward & three steps back.

    Whenever the GOP can’t dismantle laws at the government level, they call out for the states to decide, never paying attention to what a majority of the people want.

  4. Shame would suggest that person had a ‘soul’. Which denotes that someone is anthropomorphizing Republicans.

    Silly person!

  5. Another socially-regressive state manages to attack the struggles for women’s rights and gay rights with one stone.

  6. What SC is really saying discrimination of any kind is okay. They just aren’t ready to say it and act upon it…yet.

  7. “You do not need the Constitution to reflect the views of current society,” he said during a wide-ranging interview with Hastings professor Calvin Massey. “I interpret it the way it was understood by society at the time.” […]

    Yes, way, way way back in 1770s (18th century). Scalia calls himself a Constitutional scholar, because he goes back to discussions made at that time, picks and chooses which documented thoughts/statements fit his personal beliefs and uses those to make judgements in 21 century.

    In fact the Constitution was written as it was was to prevent religion from controlling this country as it did in England. Remember Article VI, the “no religious test….”?

    The Supreme Court has disgraced itself in the past, we should demand that they keep their personal beliefs to themselves and remember the Declaration of Independence which has as much importance as the Constitution.

  8. It really becomes a question of how much more credibility is SCOTUS willing to lose? They will begin living in the 21st century or lose all remaining credibility they still enjoy.

    Every day we are reminded of the utter chaos of religion dominated “governance” in the middle east. Regardless their religious convictions, the justices had better wake up and begin rejecting religion as a viable interpretation of the constitution.

    The vast majority of people anywhere have to believe that societal laws are just. SCOTUS could find themselves being ignored if religious injustice is their chosen path.

  9. America for the white Christian rich males is pretty much the kind of America the GOP/TP want, while calling anyone who disagrees an enemy to freedom and liberty because they can’t see how messed up their hold on reality is.

  10. Next step removing women’s right to vote. Don’t laugh – if these cretins are using the 14th amendment to say they can discriminate; what is stopping them from creating legislation using the Constitution language of the 19th C to remove the right to vote for women? There is all ready a large portion of white males and some right-wing airhead females who would love to stymie voting rights.

  11. Well we know at least 2 members of the Supreme Court would accept the originalist interpretation of the 14th Amendment to discriminate against women and LGBT. The problem with using the 14th Amendment not making women equal is it ignores the 19th Amendment. The original constitution allowed the ultimate discrimination against Black people.

    Alito, Scalia, and Roberts need to be removed from the court. We are living in the 21st century not the late 18th century or even the mid 19th century.

  12. Thank you, SC! Honesty, at last. Women are only 3/5s citizens. Gynoticians happily elevate the right of a sperm over the right of the owner of a fertilized egg.
    Hyde amendment pretends women don’t pay taxes, so banning Federal funding of a legal medical procedure is unremarkable. Even though it provides a ghastly weapon against poor women, military women and young women. Only the rich are spared.
    The failure of the passage of the ERA is a blatant admission that America prefers its women to be chattel, and looks longingly towards the day when religious dogma fully trumps Constitutional protections.
    Domestic violence is a tacit acknowledgement that women are not citizens with equal protection under law.

    Religion is the cover, but the willingness of Americans to deny our constitution to keep women as an underclass is terrible and shameful.
    No achievement, no effort, no sacrifice is enough to raise me to the level of a citizen with dignity and inalienable rights.

    Thank you, S…

  13. Considering that we ‘re talking SC politics, the same state
    that gave us Miss Lindsey Graham & Trey”Ellen”Gowdy,
    is anyone honestly surprised?

  14. How kind of South Carolina to remind their female voters that the state *wants* to discriminate against them so close to the time of Clinton’s announcement to run for President…

  15. Since discrimination is returning to South Carolina, I guess it is OK for people there to discriminate against State and National congresspersons. I can see it now– you are the representative for my district and a Republican, so you can not eat in my restaurant or you can not stay at my hotel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.