National
Gill’s ‘stealthy’ activism to continue under new leader
Fordham maintains contact with former boss Mark Foley
Kirk Fordham (right) with his partner Mike Cevarr and their sons Lukas and Levi. (Photo courtesy Fordham)
The Gill Action Fund’s new leader promises to continue the organization’s brand of stealthy, behind-the-scenes activism.
Kirk Fordham, who was named March 1 as head of the Denver-based organization, said in a Washington Blade interview he envisions a “degree of stealthiness” for Gill Action under his leadership in addition to working openly in efforts to advance LGBT rights throughout the country.
“I think it’ll be a hybrid of some deployment of highly trained gay SWAT teams, as I like to call it, and some of us will just be working very transparently with the existing organizations that are already on the ground,” Fordham said.
One of the advantages of Gill Action compared to other LGBT groups, Fordham said, is being able to deploy small teams of activists to regions where “there may be a gap and there may be a need to effect change on a pretty rapid basis.”
“That will allow us to perhaps go into some areas deep into the heartland of this country where there may not have been a lot of focus and activity to advance either non-discrimination or marriage equality or anti-bullying legislation,” Fordham said.
Gill Action — founded by gay billionaire philanthropist Tim Gill in 2005 — has a reputation for secrecy. Fordham will start in his new position April 16.
The group has played a role, without seeking credit, in passing statewide pro-LGBT legislation in various states, including the marriage equality legislation in New York. After an initial 2009 vote on same-sex marriage in the state failed, Gill Action funded a campaign in the state, called Fight Back New York to unseat state senators opposed to marriage equality, which ultimately unseated three senators.
Asked whether Gill Action would seek greater engagement with the media as it undertakes new initiatives, Fordham said the level of public engagement would “depend on the project” the organization is pursuing.
“There are sometimes where it may be to our community’s advantage not to broadcast exactly what our roadmap and our strategy might be on a particular issue or particular state, but I don’t think there’s a desire to speak sparingly with the press because they don’t trust the press or they have a hostile relationship,” Fordham said. “I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that it’s such a strategic decision on perhaps the element of surprise.”
According to a 2008 report in The Advocate, Gill Action in the 2006 election directed $2.8 million in nationwide contributions through its OutGiving program to 68 candidates across 11 states, and 56 of those candidates won. One of the more controversial ads funded by the organization was deployed against former Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, author of the Federal Marriage Amendment. It depicted an actress dressed like her stealing a watch from a corpse in an open coffin, criticizing her for her vote on a tax for funeral homes.
Fordham said Gill Action will take a look at the broader map to determine places other than urban areas and states on the coasts to lay the groundwork “for cementing a better quality of life for LGBT people, even in the most conservative parts of the country.”
“Now that some of the lower hanging fruit has been picked, it’s time to start harvesting in less fertile territory,” Fordham said. “So, I believe, that we have literally millions of people that are living in states that have no protection whatsoever from workplace discrimination, relationship recognition and their schools. And so, I think, we want to start advancing some of those protections in places where they’re most needed.”
Fordham was reluctant to identify any particular areas where Gill Action would focus its attention, saying such decisions haven’t been made yet. But, asked whether Minnesota would be a place where resources could be directed, he said the state would be “high on the list of places that would be on our priority list.”
“My sense is that most Minnesotans are pretty fair-minded folks,” Fordham said. “So I think we’re going to be taking a very close look at that state as a horizon state where there are opportunities to make some progress.”
Assuming the anti-gay marriage amendment that will come before voters in the state in November is defeated, Minesota could be poised to legalize same-sex marriage if the Democrats take control of the legislature. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) has expressed support for marriage rights for gay couples.
Growing up in a Christian and Republican family, Fordham said he also has experience with parents who initially were unhappy about his sexual orientation, but later came to terms with it, and he knows what it takes to change the hearts and minds of people like them.
“When I first came out, they sent me these Focus on the Family books and tapes and magazines,” Fordham said. “They were praying everyday that I would see a path back to heterosexuality. Now that I’ve been with my partner for 23 years, we’ve adopted two kids, they welcome us as part of the family. They’re a perfect case study of how conservative Republicans who happen to be people of faith can come around and change their attitudes.”
Fordham lives in Coral Gables, Fla., with his partner, Mike Cevarr, and their two sons, Lukas and Levi. The family will relocate to Denver when Fordham takes the helm of Gill Action.
A lifelong Republican, Fordham currently serves as CEO of Everglades Foundation, but has had experience working for several GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill, even some with anti-gay records. He also worked for former Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned after a scandal involving male pages in 2006. While still a college student, Fordham worked for James Inhofe of Oklahoma, then a member of the U.S. House. He’s also worked for Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida.
Fordham said he “absolutely” plans on reaching out to Republican lawmakers to influence them on LGBT issues and he knows “how to speak their language.”
“Once you move past the first and second-tier states where you have Democratic legislatures and friendly Democratic governors, the list of options starts to get more difficult, we can either wait and hope that someday, those states will have Democratic elected officials that are friendly, or we can start having a conversation with those currently elected Republican leaders in legislatures that have Republican supermajorities,” Fordham said.
Fordham has received congratulations on his new role across the board from groups like the Center for American Progress, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force as well as praise from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and pro-LGBT Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).
Still, skepticism remains that Fordham will be able to bring change within the Republican Party.
Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, said Fordham is qualified for the position, but questions how effective he can be with Republicans on LGBT issues.
“I take issue with this idea that because he’s a Republican, he can influence Republican votes because that’s utter nonsense,” Besen said. “Republican votes that are not coming our way has nothing to do with the arguments we’re making; it has nothing to do with a lack of effort. It has everything to do with the religious right as the Republicans’ most powerful constituency. They will do what’s necessary to please them.”
Although Fordham has worked for numerous Republicans, his most infamous former employer is former Rep. Mark Foley of Florida, who resigned in 2006 amid media reports he sent inappropriate messages to underage pages on Capitol Hill. Fordham was chief of staff for Foley after having worked on his campaign in 1994. While working for Martinez as the scandal broke, he helped broker agreements with the media on the story and testified before the House Ethics Committee on the issue. Foley later came out as gay.
Reflecting on the Foley scandal, Fordham said it was “one of the great crisis-management experiences” of his life and “a disappointment” because Foley was popular and well-regarded in his Republican caucus.
“It’s a perfect example of how someone through some reckless and irresponsible actions can flush down the toilet a promising political career,” Fordham said.
While working as chief of staff for Foley, Fordham said he had no knowledge of his boss sending inappropriate text and instant messages, but knew that he was engaging with pages and younger staffers.
“What I saw was the same kind of behavior you see among some heterosexual members of Congress: spending time socializing with on the floor of the House or in the halls of the Capitol, paying an inappropriate amount of attention to younger staffers or pages,” Fordham said. “Although that kind of behavior isn’t criminal, it’s certainly something that I thought crossed the line for a member of Congress as far as how they ought to conduct themselves.”
Fordham said he told the Ethics Committee everything and the steps “I took to try to influence my boss’s behavior,” saying the report that was produced in the end was favorable to him. According to media reports, Fordham had informed the staff of then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert about Foley’s behavior, but no action was taken.
Although they didn’t speak for a year after the event, Fordham says he now maintains a personal relationship with Foley and they have periodic phone conversations. Foley is based in West Palm Beach, while Fordham resides near Miami.
“I think he’s trying to rehabilitate himself and he’s now engaged in the community up there,” Fordham said. “We talked about the potential of him running for mayor of West Palm Beach. I gave him my best advice, and in the end, he decided not to run. So, I still hear from him once in a while, but I do believe in forgiveness and redemption for everyone, even when they break the public trust and do things that we consider really bad behavior.”
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
Senegalese NGO claims new president discussed LGBTQ rights with top EU official
What Anne Arundel County school board candidates think about book bans
It’s game, set, and mismatch in unfulfilling ‘Challengers’
D.C. Council member proposes change for Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
New World Bank US executive director: LGBTQ rights are human rights
