Speaker Johnson - A Homophobic Past and Present
At the Races for the Speaker's Track Record
A backbench conservative from the deep South holding homophobic views? Colour me surprised.
In a past article on the day that Mike Johnson was elected Speaker of the House, I hinted towards his sordid past with homophobia and his general history of hatred on the grounds of same sex attraction. I thought that I could leave it there, but since then more and more has come out about Johnson, most notably an old interview where he proudly spoke about how him and his son monitored the other’s porn habits. But one thing I haven’t seen is widespread condemnation of essays that Johnson proudly authored and put his name to which are explicitly derogatory, homophobic and unbecoming of a man who is meant to lead a chamber of Congress for all Americans.
Today’s article will detail Johnson’s history with homophobia, his contribution to the “queer panic,” which has consumed the modern American right and aim to get the word out about these articles, which seem only to exist in dark corners of the internet. Join me on this journey, and I can only ask for you to share this piece far and wide as a concise rundown of some of the Louisianan’s most vile views.
“Sexual Orientation Move Should be Opposed”
That is the title of a 2005 piece authored by Johnson for his local Shreveport Times in opposition to a push by Shreveport activists to include sexual orientation in local employment non-discrimination laws. This is a provision which still isn’t federal law in the United States, but is true across more than 30 States today. If this wasn’t bad enough, Johnson then went on to say that, “your race, creed, and sex are what you are, while homosexuality and cross-dressing are things you do.” Stoking the painful narrative that being gay is a choice - a fact which is not backed by either science or even the modern conservative movement at large.
Some may argue that this is a twenty-year-old piece and should be taken in context with the time, which is certainly true, but it isn’t like Johnson has since disavowed this opinion and there is nothing in my mind which suggests that he has moderated his view since the early 2000s. Further, those who he quotes in the 2005 piece have also not changed their views since then. One key author quoted by Johnson is Jan LaRue, asserting that, "Creating a special civil rights status for city employees based on bedroom behaviour is an insult to true minorities. Who will be next, adulterers?" As of 2012, LaRue had certainly not moderated her rhetoric, releasing a critical essay disavowing the institution of gay marriage in the United States.
These are the kinds of people that Johnson surrounded himself with back when he worked on the state level in Louisiana, and were his leading mentors when he made it to federal office.
Johnson also published a 2004 article in the same newspaper, where he actually spoke with an increased level of vitriol compared to the latter article discussed above. This article was in defence of Louisiana’s “Defence of Marriage,” Amendment which, at the time, enshrined in Louisiana law that marriage could only be defined as existing between one man and one woman. He went so far as to say that, should same-sex marriage be legalised then, “polygamists, polyamorists, paedophiles and others will be next in line to claim equal protection,” and that, “there will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet.” These are absolutely absurd insinuations, and don’t reflect the character of a man who, in his capacity, is meant to speak on the behalf of all Americans regardless of their creed, sexuality, gender etc.
But these essays would mean nothing had Johnson not gone into politics. They would be the otherwise inane ramblings of a man famous in Shreveport but nowhere else. Surely his views are so out of the ordinary that nobody would elect him federally? And even if they did, surely his views would moderate as he realised the duty he had to serve all Americans?
Answering Genesis - Johnson v (Obergefell v Hodges)
Ignore what I closed the last paragraph with, because the third article of note from Johnson to put his homophobia in frame is a piece he wrote for the Christian site, “Answering Genesis,” in a frankly offensive article titled, “Losing Liberty Without Losing Hope.” And yes, dear reader, you may have already guessed it but the liberty which Johnson thinks he has lost is the right of gay people to marry. He wrote this in 2017, after already being an elected member of Congress, as an attack against the decision in Obergefell v Hodges, which legalised gay marriage in the United States.
Without a hint of irony, this is one of the most abhorrent articles I have ever read. A fact even more horrifying given that it was written by a man who was then still a member of Congress, and is now third in line to the Presidency. Along with the quote above, Johnson only refers to equal marriage in quotation marks, implying that he doesn’t see the institution as legitimate. He also seems to call for actual action against the legalisation of same sex marriage stating that, “when we are asked to violate our beliefs, every believer needs to know—and be prepared to defend—an appropriate biblical response.” It is beyond fiction that the Republican caucus allowed such an ardent homophobe to lead a chamber of Congress, but it perhaps reflects the level to which the modern conservative movement has stooped to.
The separation of church and state is also seemingly something which constitutional lawyer Mike Johnson doesn’t put much stock in, as is reflected in his section on gospel from the 2017 article, where he insists that governments are best served by preserving the institution of opposite-sex marriage. He goes so far as to suggest that governments would, “do well to encourage intact families formed by biological parents,” due to that being the way by which God designed man - this is a complete projection of Johnson’s religious views, imposing them over legislation designed to prevent discrimination. No man with these views should have the power vested in him by the United States congress.
The last section of his essay, which segues into the next part of this article, is his explanation on how one can keep their domicile holy after same sex couples (of which Johnson is not a member) were given the right to marry. According to the Speaker, the decision in Obergefell also frustrated gender roles, so parents must teach traditional or biblical gender roles to their children. He also states his belief that the only way in which one can teach their children about homosexuality is to use discernment to remind their kin that it is sinful, and that, “part of the goal of parenting is teaching our children to love God and hate sin.”
Child Exploitation
Speaking of federal office, it’s time to talk about the first bill which Johnson put his name to once he made it to Congress, the Protecting Children Against Exploitation Act which, among other things, sought to criminalise sexting between adolescents under the age of 18. On the surface this is a noble pursuit, but what it really is is taking a hammer to an issue which needs a light tap, since it raised the possibility of young couples being at risk of being entered onto the sex offender register just for sexting. At it’s most extreme, this bill would’ve made it so that someone who was 19 years old and one day sexting someone who was 17 years old and 364 days could be liable for a fifteen year prison sentence. This is likely why the bill died before making it to the Senate.
The reason I mention this bill, is to segue into the 2022 Act penned by the same man, this time called the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act. This is another piece of legislation which, on the surface, seems impossible to oppose - until you actually read it, and realise that it is heavily tied in with the wave of “Don’t Say Gay,” legislation which swept the nation in 2022. If it came into law, Johnson’s Act would have enabled parents to sue schools and other similar institutions if they promoted literature relating in any way to sexual orientation. Alongside this, it would also have prohibited federally funded institutions to run any “sexually oriented” events for under 10s, while also not giving a plain text definition of sexually oriented. This is somewhat of an oversight for a man who likes to claim the title of the, “intellectual arsenal of conservatism,” and was a constitutional lawyer by trade before entering Congress.
To the untrained eye, it could perhaps appear like Johnson is carrying over his homophobic views to the House. Such untrained eyes are those of David Stacy of the Human Rights Campaign, who labelled Johnson’s bill as, “not an attempt to solve actual problems but only to rile up their [GOP] extremist base.” One should also be reminded that Johnson was the only candidate able to unify the Republican congressional caucus, which is a stark reminder that this sort of rhetoric has become red meat for many conservative donors, politicians and voters. Mike Johnson just happens to be their flagbearer who, by many accounts, stumbled his way into the speakership and didn’t anticipate his record being scrutinised to this degree.
Wrapping Up
As I hope I’ve proven, Mike Johnson is a genuine threat to LGBTQ+ rights across America, and his speakership should be challenged at every step (that is of course if it doesn’t collapse under it’s own weight thanks to spending battles). Assuming that he sees through his term of Speaker, and potentially beyond, Democrats should see him as a weakness for the GOP due to his outlandish and often fascistic approach to same-sex relations in the world’s largest democracy. The bottom line is that while he is a danger to the United State’s queer community, his power is currently curbed by the Democrat-controlled Senate, but with that looking increasingly unlikely come 2024, it is imperative that Johnson is removed from power as soon as possible.
Separation of church and state!!!! I cannot overstate my horror at this man’s preoccupation with sex. He obviously doth protest too much. Separation of bedroom and boardroom as well. Democracy is in peril in his hands and those of his handlers.
The pastors are praying “Please, Lord, heal this man.” Unanswered as yet. How did this doorstop get people to apply the label “constitutional lawyer” to him?