Say Gay, Cowards!!!!
As Roger Stone plagiarized from Shakespeare: "Past is fucking prologue."
I’d like to wish a happy Pride Month to all the girls, gays, theys, and boys I made out with in high school.1
While, of course, the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade on Friday is pertinent and painful, one major thing to understand is that this was not a surprise. Conservatives have been determined to tear down Roe for the last forty-nine and a half years and have not been subtle about it. I want to make sure this point is clear because they’re doing this again.
Sexual assailant Justice Clarence Thomas made sure to make it abundantly clear that Roe is just the starting point when he wrote a concurring majority opinion explicitly listing the cases he wants the court to overturn next:
The cases he mentioned are Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 ruling in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage (X).
As we’ve established, Roe never actually said that abortion itself was protected but rather everyone had a right to privacy in regards to abortion (meaning: we’ve not going to stop you from having one because that’s your business). If the right to privacy over a medical procedure is unconstitutional, the right to privacy regarding the medicine you take, who you have sex with, and your marriage may all be Amy Coney Barrett’s business and not your own.
Today, we’re not going to be talking about reproductive rights but rather something else that will likely never see constitutional protections with this court. It is, in part, a conversation that is near and dear to my heart which I recognize is a very unsettling way to introduce rampant homophobic discrimination.
We’re going to break down what the Lavender Scare was, as well as which of its core facets are likely to become critical again with the increase of anti-LGBTQ+ bills and anti-trans bills, in particular.
You’re Telling Me You’re Scared of Lavender?
For all the times I’ve talked about Roy Cohn here on this newsletter, I don’t believe I ever shared our origin story.
I discovered Roy as part of a research project I conducted on the Lavender Scare, an offshoot witch-hunt of the infamous Second Red Scare. While less discussed than the Red Scare, the Lavender Scare was far more damaging for its victims in a number of ways.
As we discussed back in January, anti-Communist fervor was all the rage following the end of WWII.
In the immediate post-war years, at a time when security and stability were no longer certain, there was a growing desire to preserve “the way things were” prior to World War II. As such, the 1950s saw an entrenchment in rigid societal norms and conservatism became a mentality of the past, advocating stagnation for the sake of security and the preservation of privilege (X).
In 1950, Senator Joesph McCarthy gave his Wheeling, West Virginia speech in which he falsely claimed that 205 Communists worked within the US State Department. The crowds went feral. When Deputy Undersecretary John Peurifoy denied the employment of Communists, he revealed that in the search for those Communists, the State Department found and fired a number of potential security risks, including 91 people they believed to be homosexuals.
Obviously, America has never been as progressive as our myths paint us out to be (or as conservatives claim we are in their fear-mongering clickbait), but it is still shocking that one of SCOTUS’ next targets, Lawerence v. Texas, wasn’t ruled until 2003. That was the last sodomy law on the books which still made it illegal to engage in same-sex sexual acts—even in private.
That was the 2000s. Imagine the shit that went on in the 1950s.
Back then, homophobia wasn’t just en vogue; it was also a commonly used political smear tactic. If you so much as alleged that your opponent was gay—whether they were running in an election or were just a civil servant—their career would often be over in a heartbeat. (It should also be noted that the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as an illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses until 1973.2)
At the height of the Red Scare, there was the added belief that anyone who was a member of the LGBTQ+ community was therefore hiding their sexuality which made them more susceptible to Communist influence. Because, obviously, if they were hiding a secret that seismic, they could be a target for blackmail or just flat-out untrustworthy.
In 1947, Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9835 which required loyalty oaths in an attempt to root out any potential Communists employed by the US government. Then in 1953, Dwight Eisenhower thought: “What if we made that worse?”
Previously, the criteria used to define a security risk were largely political, that is, affiliation with suspect organizations or a clear demonstration of disloyalty. Executive Order 10450 added more general estimations of character, stability, and reliability. Its language was broad: "Any criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, habitual use of intoxicants to excess, drug addiction, or sexual perversion" (X).
“Sexual perversion” was included last but was obviously the biggest get homophobes could possibly score. In one of the first academic texts on the Lavender Scare, historian David K. Johnson writes that
in the troika of sinners routinely listed as security risks—the alcoholic, the loquacious, and the pervert—only the pervert was always a security risk... it was the only one of the three to be illegal... [and as such] although ‘security risk’ covered a variety of offenses, it often function as a euphemism for homosexual (X).
Immediately after 10450 went into effect, anyone who was known or—and this is key—suspected of being gay was terminated. Of course, not before they were called before the FBI for questioning often without legal representation (according to the sole documentary on the Lavender Scare).
Ultimately, over 10,000 civil servants lost their job as a result of Executive Order 10450 simply because of their sexuality. While no one should be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation, how someone identified was clearly never the issue at hand: the problem was—as it is today—the power held by people who are fearful of things they don’t understand.
What is This Building Towards?
As of April, there have already been over 300 anti-LGBTQ+ bills proposed around the country and the Human Rights Campaign has stated that we are on track to surpass 2021’s 150 pieces of proposed anti-trans legislation.
Obviously, we have Florida’s now iconique “Don’t Say Gay” bill which has inspired more than a dozen other states to propose similar bills. According to Freedom For All Americans, only 11 states have not proposed a piece of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation this year.3 We mentioned three weeks ago that five out of the top ten proposed book bans this year have been on the basis of containing LGBTQ+ content.
A couple of weeks ago, New Hampshire’s state senate passed H.B. 431 which requires teachers to out students to their parents in addition to banning conversations about sexuality and gender in the classroom. A similar bill passed in Alabama this year in addition to banning “the use of puberty blockers or any medical procedure for those under 19 years old that is related to changing gender… The bill makes it a felony — with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years — for a doctor to perform surgery or prescribe any medication for a gender transition”(X).
Why is the Lavender Scare important to reflect upon? Because its core driving sentiment is still at the wheel today.
There is so much more nuance to this statement but the gist is that conservatives like the ones sitting on the SCOTUS, like the ones still defending Donald Trump, like the ones winning primaries for their midterm elections around the country will always fear anything that decentralizes power and will fight with everything in them to keep that from happening.
As author and creator Alok Vaid-Menon has said, people are threatened by trans individuals living as their authentic selves because they have been taught to repress who they truly are. The same can be said for most members of the LGBTQ+ community (not all, see: Roy Cohn), and can be extrapolated out to apply to anyone who takes total control and practices autonomy over their lives (are you reading between the lines)?
While it’s truly a shame we aren’t all born as perfect as Brett Kavanaugh, it’s a blessing we’re not as unsubtle either.
The conservative playbook will always stay the same. They will always work to preserve a white, cishet, Christian hierarchy that they believe will provide them with stability, and anything that threatens that will be eliminated. There are clear ties between the Lavender Scare and the anti-LGBTQ+ legislation of today, and that’s just one example.
The thing that needs to change is us. We can no longer play by the rules when the other side will do whatever it takes to win.
Campaign and vote for progressive candidates. Start grassroots organizations with your friends and neighbors. Use the SCOTUS justices’ credit cards apparently??? And, if you’re an establishment Democrat reading this: codify human rights and, for fuck’s sake, pack the court!!!!
This was a bit more demoralizing than funny today but it’s been a bit of a demoralizing week. No E4P for the next two weeks but I think you’ll all survive ❤️❤️
Every boy I kissed in high school—not an exaggeration—has since come out so I do sincerely wish they all had a happy Pride month!!!
Fun fact: an anti-trans piece of legislation in the Ohio state house that prohibits any effort to change a child’s sex is known as the Save Adolescents from Experimentation Act and has been categorized as being about mental health.
Although, fortunately, a number have failed to be passed or have been vetoed.