I was 13 years old the day same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide. I remember it clearly because that was also the day I decided to sneak into the local gym under false pretenses. Anyone younger than 14 had to be accompanied by an adult and I lied about my age to the front desk employee to get in. I curbed my youthful exuberance when the news came on the television in the weight room. Surely showing any emotion would reveal my true age, and I was not ready for Rikers Island, where I seemingly thought underage kids who snuck into the gym went when they got caught. 

Although I made no sound, my mouth dropped and my eyes widened. Suddenly it no longer mattered to me if homophobic North Carolina legislators disapproved of two men kissing; the law was on our side. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld equal rights for the LGBT community and in turn, upheld my existence as a pansexual. 

It is hard to think about now, as a 19-year-old, that just over five years ago, same-sex couples could not wed in my state. What is even harder to think about now is how this ruling could be overturned if Amy Coney Barrett is appointed to the Supreme Court.

When I found out Barrett only has three years of prior judicial experience, it confirmed for me just how rushed the Trump administration’s attempt to appoint her to the Supreme Court was. Why does Barrett’s lack of judicial experience matter so much in relation to LGBT issues? If there’s one thing Trump’s presidency has taught us, it’s that a lack of experience combined with dangerous ideas can lead to steadfast and long-lasting chaos. 

In the past, judicial rulings could not simply be overturned, as precedent had to be followed and judges were not supposed to rule along party lines. However, Barrett’s role as a Supreme Court justice with extreme views and a lack of experience will be just that: to uphold conservative ideas and vote in favor of Republican party politics. In turn, she will likely work to abruptly overturn cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Barrett, who once described marriage as “the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman,” will likely abuse her power as a Supreme Court justice to inflict her beliefs on the rest of the nation.

And boy, does she have some questionable beliefs. Barrett is affiliated with People of Praise, a secretive Catholic covenant that condemns abortion and believes men are divinely appointed as the heads of their households. People of Praise has a reputation for aggressively pushing their beliefs on others; in fact, in 2014 Pope Francis warned Catholic groups such as Barrett’s about forcefully restricting others’ freedom and forcing their beliefs on people. 

Should Barrett be appointed to the Supreme Court, she could restrict reproductive healthcare for women, force women back into submission to their husbands and undo everything Ruth Bader Ginsburg and countless women before her fought for.

So now, at 19, I find myself, once again, staring speechlessly at the news. I find myself, once again, justifying my own queer identity to the radically religious. However, this time I also find myself questioning whether I will even have the same guaranteed rights that I grew up with as a woman.

We cannot afford to let Amy Coney Barrett shut every single door she used to get ahead in life for countless other women behind her. And we cannot afford to let a religious fanatic impose her beliefs on queer couples who didn’t ask for her opinion (and certainly didn’t invite her to their wedding!) If Barrett has an issue with gay marriage and women’s rights, she is free to live a blissful life of heterosexuality herself. But she has a duty to uphold the constitution, and in doing so, she should keep her church out of everyone’s state.