"Ex-Gays" | DOMA | Proposition 8 | Rachel Maddow | Supreme Court

Rachel Maddow: Supreme Court Needs to Determine Whether Being Gay is a Choice - VIDEO


On Thursday night, Rachel Maddow discussed some of the 11 cases the Supreme Court has yet to hand down this session which include Affirmative Action, the Voting Rights Act, and, of course marriage.

The outcome of the marriage cases, as we've noted many times this year, depends on whether the court decides whether discrimination against gay people should be subject to strict scrutiny.

Says Maddow...

"The argument to keep anti-gay laws in our country depends in fundamental ways on the belief that being gay is a choice, and you can choose not to be gay if you don’t want to be gay."

Before drawing a line to the exodus of "ex-gay" group Exodus International this week...

"They have not been changing gay people to straight people for the past 37 years, but now they will stop trying. There are certainly going to be other groups taking up the mantle, but as of today they are done, and they say they are sorry. And the Supreme Court rules next week."


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Scalia has not evolved and never will; his bias is both visceral and religious.
    How a man can sit as a judge when he has already made up his mind on all issues pertaining to gays is beyond me. Put simply Scalia is not judicial material.

    As for Thomas, he has painted himself into the Dunce's Corner with his pointed hat on.....and he will go down in the history of SCOTUS as the original sad clown.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jun 22, 2013 9:24:08 AM

  2. Agree Jack, why is he not recusing himself from this case? Or why is he not being ASKED to recuse himself when he's made it so obvious from previous cases and statements he can NOT be impartial to this matter?

    Posted by: RONTEX | Jun 22, 2013 9:43:11 AM

  3. Jack and Rontex - exactly!

    And why has Scalia not recused himself? Because he has no more respect for proper judicial process than for the natural facts of life and human nature. That he is the given enthronement of bias makes him patently unfit...UNFIT...to offer either opinion or decision in matters pertaining to homosexuality. He should not be asked to recuse himself, it should be demanded of him.

    Homosexual feeling is a natural condition that runs far more deeply through history than religious dogma or cultural bias which it both preceeds and shall outlast. Scalia's bias is cradled in ignorance and neither have any place in the Supreme Court.

    I have very little hope for this matter in this court. Thus I keep my love for a man, and for men, far from the irrelevance of judicial approval.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jun 22, 2013 10:29:24 AM

  4. I totally disagree with Maddow's argument. These cases are about the freedom to live as you choose, not about your inborn characteristics.

    Posted by: franklin | Jun 22, 2013 11:08:45 AM

  5. @franklin what she is saying is that if being gay is not a choice, then the court can find that there is a characteristic about gay people that cannot change and then the courts can use a scrutiny test that will ensure that we win.

    Posted by: floridaguy727 | Jun 22, 2013 11:44:50 AM

  6. The problem is this:

    Scalia doesn't see himself as a judge, he sees himself as an Emperor.

    Posted by: johnny | Jun 22, 2013 12:21:26 PM

  7. I know what she is saying, and it is the wrong approach.

    Posted by: franklin | Jun 22, 2013 12:37:11 PM

  8. The SCOTUS needs to acknowledge that orientation is not a choice.

    Once that happens, there can be no justification for discriminatory laws.

    That's the point she's trying to make. I do Maddow, but she often says in 5000 words what could be said in 50.

    Posted by: Pete N SFO | Jun 22, 2013 1:36:58 PM

  9. try asking an "it's a choice" bigot to prove it, for a few minutes, by choosing to be "gay" or "attracted to the same sex" then choosing to change back.

    because apparently that's the argument.

    but still, it's a lame one. one chooses their religion. one chooses which parts of scripture they'll ignore and which ones they'll piously obsess over.

    The Choice thing is nonsense, as evidenced by The Closet. Were being gay 'a choice', then The Closet wouldn't exist. Every Closet-Case would be straight.

    that said, were it a choice - i'd choose it. i love my gay life. i love it. it's been rich in experience and perspective.

    my parents even said it - my being gay has enriched THEIR lives.

    my heart holds strong for you, USA. here's hoping these clowns remember how history will paint them, not how the soon-to-die generation of Good Old Boys would want them to go out. you know, Jesse Helms style.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jun 22, 2013 1:43:40 PM

  10. Scalia won't be writing for the majority in this case even if the conservative block wins. He might be writing for the minority if they lose though. Kennedy will almost certainly be writing the majority opinion, probably with a concurrence from one or two others who don't want to mince words.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 22, 2013 1:47:19 PM

  11. Counting chicks before they've hatched but ....
    If Kennedy sides with equality that gives Roberts cover to do so as well and we could possibly have a 6-3 decision.
    Knock wood.

    Posted by: JONES | Jun 22, 2013 2:16:18 PM

  12. the choice question is now irrelevant. makes it seem like we "can't help it" that we're gay.

    Posted by: t | Jun 22, 2013 2:24:44 PM

  13. well, "choice" is not a reason for anti-gay prejudice, it's just been a (stupid and indefensible) excuse for so long that low-thinkers continue to repeat it.

    similar to "you can hide being gay so it's not immutable and it's not like skin colour, etc."

    yeah, tell that to all the other young people who, like me, were called out as the "neighbourhood f@ggot" by age 8 and had to get transferred to other school districts when the bullying got out of control.

    that's where "we" get frustrated - the same stupid, indefensible and useless "arguments" against us have been shot down, time and time again, and yet the idiots keep trotting them out, as if they're profound or something.

    i mean, we still get grown adults saying "adam & eve not adam & steve" as if that makes any intellectual sense whatsoever.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jun 22, 2013 2:32:53 PM

  14. Yes Pete she does often overstate her argument until through all the verbage you can hardly remember the point.

    Imagine if you were living with her and she was on your case about something? Run.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Jun 22, 2013 5:34:06 PM

  15. It is true that, although I admire her intellect and politics, more often than not I feel compelled "to endure" her verbosity. She needs (as do I, actually) a stern editor who reviews her scripts and reins it in. She probably hated Hemingway's terseness while in school! Nevertheless, I always learn something from enduring her classroom-like lectures, as humorous as she tries to make them during their longevity. (Then again, I don't care how long she goes on about her cocktail recipes. There she really shines!)

    Posted by: Tom Cardellino | Jun 22, 2013 9:55:30 PM

  16. actually, strict scrutiny has been applied to cases of religious discrimination...although in those cases (according to wikipedia) the laws are upheld 60% of the time.

    religious affiliation is a choice...

    so it's not entirely true that strict scrutiny only applies to cases of immutable characteristics but having an immutable characteristic helps.

    Posted by: Chitown kev | Jun 22, 2013 10:11:23 PM

  17. Isn't rachel's point not that "not a choice"is a winning argument, but that inherency stipulates a more favorable level of scrutiny, thus a tactical, not practical, advantage.

    Posted by: bandanajack | Jun 22, 2013 11:02:59 PM

  18. I'm with Rachel. I appreciate her viewpoints and the topics and information she presents. If I was the director I'd just tell her to never say "right". She's not Miss Rachel on Romper room with her Magic Mirror. She can't see us. It's not a conversation. And OK, she could edit a bit more tightly. And can't anyone on msnbc go beyond the usual cast of liberal pundits a little more? All pretty much quibbles though.

    Posted by: emjayay | Jun 23, 2013 1:42:27 AM

  19. It's a chicken egg question. I await a shocker result from The Supremes. And Kiwi, do you still live with your parents? If not, your sphere of wonderfulness might evaporate -- but I'm sure you and you will be just fine...

    Posted by: OhCanada | Jun 23, 2013 2:04:54 AM

  20. Your continued obsession with me is duly noted, and my parents and I don't even live in the same city. But thanks for your concern :D

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jun 23, 2013 2:56:48 PM

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Talking Points: Deen, Weiner and a Mormon Mom« «