National
Advocacy groups welcome Supreme Court decision to hear marriage cases
Couples in four New England states challenged DOMA in federal court
State groups welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of DOMA, Proposition 8. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Same-sex couples and others who challenged the Defense of Marriage Act on Friday welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of DOMA and California’s Proposition 8.
“I’ve been waiting 64 years for this happen,” Sandisfield, Mass., resident Herb Burtis, who married his partner of nearly 60 years in 2004 once Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law took effect, said.
The Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in 2009 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Burtis, whose husband died from Parkinson’s disease in 2008, two other gay widows and eight same-sex couples who challenged the federal government’s denial of marital and survivor benefits to them under DOMA. The group in 2010 brought a second suit on behalf of five same-sex couples and a gay widow who legally married in Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont.
The court has yet to announce whether it will hear these and two other DOMA-related cases.
President Obama announced in Feb. 2011 his administration would no longer defend the Clinton-era law in federal court.
“After his death, I found that I would be denied any federal benefits that any other married couple would receive, and that’s when I became involved in the Gill case with GLAD,” said Burtis. “I’m very happy the court is going to hear at least one case that has to do with the constitutionality of DOMA.”
Joanne Pedersen, who worked for the U.S. Navy for 30 years, married Ann Meitzen in Connecticut in 2008 after the state’s same-sex marriage law took effect. She said after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases filed on behalf of New York widow Edith Windsor, who paid $363,000 in federal estate taxes in 2009 after her wife’s death, and same-sex couples who challenged Prop 8’s constitutionality that her inability to place Meitzen on her health insurance policy “really hurts us financially.”
“Joanne and I are a regular couple,” Meitzen added. “We mow our law. We pay our bills. We’ve paid our taxes our whole life and the fed government is treating us like our marriage doesn’t exist. We’re very happy that the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that has to do with the constitutionality of marriages.”
State advocates welcome Supreme Court’s review of marriage cases
The U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear the Windsor and Prop 8 cases a day after same-sex couples in Washington and Maryland began receiving same-sex marriage licenses. Gays and lesbians can begin to legally marry in the two states on Sunday and on Jan. 1 respectively.
The same-sex marriage law that Maine voters approved last month takes effect on Dec. 29.
“I hope the Supreme Court will strike down DOMA and allow all married same-sex couples in Maryland to be treated equally under federal law,” Equality Maryland Executive Director Carrie Evans told the Washington Blade.
Kara Suffredini, executive director of MassEquality, also welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the two cases.
“Marriages of same-sex couples in Massachusetts are still not recognized by the federal government because of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act,” she said. “In addition to being immoral, this inequality means that married same-sex couples do not have access to many of the safety nets afforded other married couples: social security survivor benefits; Medicaid long-term care benefits; spousal veteran benefits; or rights of inheritance. The continued enforcement of DOMA has created an indefensible two-tiered system of treatment for married couples based solely on the gender of the spouses.”
Nathan M. Schaefer, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, agreed.
Even though same-sex couples have been able to legally marry in New York since July 2011, Schaefer stressed “our commitments are not honored and our families are not protected by the federal government” because of DOMA.
“We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant all married couples, in New York and other states, the recognition they deserve by upholding the multiple lower court rulings that have already declared sections of DOMA unconstitutional,” he said. “We view these deliberations as a critical step toward ending discrimination and advancing equality for all Americans.”
Eight states and D.C. currently have laws that allow same-sex couples to legally marry. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear the two cases comes as lawmakers in Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island are poised to debate the issue.
“While the cases progress in the Supreme Court, we must not lose sight of the work that remains at the state level,” Equality Illinois CEO Bernard Cherkasov said. “Our opponents are likely to make every effort during this period to try to stymie progress in Illinois, saying we should wait to hear from the court. Given the success of marriage equality initiatives in the General Election and growing support for it throughout the country including Illinois, we need to continue to press for action in our state.”
As for the U.S. Supreme Court itself; Mary Bonauto, director of GLAD’s Civil Rights Project, remains confident the justices will ultimately decide these issues outlined in the two cases the justices agreed to consider.
“We have certainly seen since we’ve had Massachusetts with marriage in ‘04 and in the other states that these federal protections affect nearly every area of live and death and are a very important part of people’s security and stability so we are very happy that this issue will be addressed by the court in the Windsor case,” she said. “On DOMA I think it’s extremely important to remember that we have a case that really can appeal to all members of the court, in addition to the fact this is discrimination against people who are already married by the state. There’s a federalism component to the case because it is states that decide who can marry and not the Congress and not the federal government in states like Connecticut and Massachusetts have agreed that committed same-sex couples can marry. The real question is what interest does the federal government have in overturning the state decision for purposes of all federal laws.”
Pennsylvania
Malcolm Kenyatta could become the first LGBTQ statewide elected official in Pa.
State lawmaker a prominent Biden-Harris 2024 reelection campaign surrogate
Following his win in the Democratic primary contest on Wednesday, Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, who is running for auditor general, is positioned to potentially become the first openly LGBTQ elected official serving the commonwealth.
In a statement celebrating his victory, LGBTQ+ Victory Fund President Annise Parker said, “Pennsylvanians trust Malcolm Kenyatta to be their watchdog as auditor general because that’s exactly what he’s been as a legislator.”
“LGBTQ+ Victory Fund is all in for Malcolm, because we know he has the experience to win this race and carry on his fight for students, seniors and workers as Pennsylvania’s auditor general,” she said.
Parker added, “LGBTQ+ Americans are severely underrepresented in public office and the numbers are even worse for Black LGBTQ+ representation. I look forward to doing everything I can to mobilize LGBTQ+ Pennsylvanians and our allies to get out and vote for Malcolm this November so we can make history.”
In April 2023, Kenyatta was appointed by the White House to serve as director of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence and Economic Opportunity for Black Americans.
He has been an active surrogate in the Biden-Harris 2024 reelection campaign.
The White House
White House debuts action plan targeting pollutants in drinking water
Same-sex couples face higher risk from environmental hazards
Headlining an Earth Day event in Northern Virginia’s Prince William Forest on Monday, President Joe Biden announced the disbursement of $7 billion in new grants for solar projects and warned of his Republican opponent’s plans to roll back the progress his administration has made toward addressing the harms of climate change.
The administration has led more than 500 programs geared toward communities most impacted by health and safety hazards like pollution and extreme weather events.
In a statement to the Washington Blade on Wednesday, Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said, “President Biden is leading the most ambitious climate, conservation, and environmental justice agenda in history — and that means working toward a future where all people can breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in a healthy community.”
“This Earth Week, the Biden-Harris Administration announced $7 billion in solar energy projects for over 900,000 households in disadvantaged communities while creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs, which are being made more accessible by the American Climate Corps,” she said. “President Biden is delivering on his promise to help protect all communities from the impacts of climate change — including the LGBTQI+ community — and that we leave no community behind as we build an equitable and inclusive clean energy economy for all.”
Recent milestones in the administration’s climate policies include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s issuance on April 10 of legally enforceable standard for detecting and treating drinking water contaminated with polyfluoroalkyl substances.
“This rule sets health safeguards and will require public water systems to monitor and reduce the levels of PFAS in our nation’s drinking water, and notify the public of any exceedances of those levels,” according to a White House fact sheet. “The rule sets drinking water limits for five individual PFAS, including the most frequently found PFOA and PFOS.”
The move is expected to protect 100 million Americans from exposure to the “forever chemicals,” which have been linked to severe health problems including cancers, liver and heart damage, and developmental impacts in children.
An interactive dashboard from the United States Geological Survey shows the concentrations of polyfluoroalkyl substances in tapwater are highest in urban areas with dense populations, including cities like New York and Los Angeles.
During Biden’s tenure, the federal government has launched more than 500 programs that are geared toward investing in the communities most impacted by climate change, whether the harms may arise from chemical pollutants, extreme weather events, or other causes.
New research by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found that because LGBTQ Americans are likelier to live in coastal areas and densely populated cities, households with same-sex couples are likelier to experience the adverse effects of climate change.
The report notes that previous research, including a study that used “national Census data on same-sex households by census tract combined with data on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from the National Air Toxics Assessment” to model “the relationship between same-sex households and risk of cancer and respiratory illness” found “that higher prevalence of same-sex households is associated with higher risks for these diseases.”
“Climate change action plans at federal, state, and local levels, including disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plans, must be inclusive and address the specific needs and vulnerabilities facing LGBT people,” the Williams Institute wrote.
With respect to polyfluoroalkyl substances, the EPA’s adoption of new standards follows other federal actions undertaken during the Biden-Harris administration to protect firefighters and healthcare workers, test for and clean up pollution, and phase out or reduce use of the chemicals in fire suppressants, food packaging, and federal procurement.
Maine
Maine governor signs transgender, abortion sanctuary bill into law
Bomb threats made against lawmakers before measure’s passage
BY ERIN REED | On Tuesday, Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed LD 227, a sanctuary bill that protects transgender and abortion providers and patients from out-of-state prosecution, into law.
With this action, Maine becomes the 16th state to explicitly protect trans and abortion care in state law from prosecution. This follows several bomb threats targeting state legislators after social media attacks from far-right anti-trans influencers such as Riley Gaines and Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok.
An earlier version of the bill failed in committee after similar attacks in January. Undeterred, Democrats reconvened and added additional protections to the bill before it was passed into law.
The law is extensive. It asserts that gender-affirming care and reproductive health care are “legal rights” in Maine. It states that criminal and civil actions against providers and patients are not enforceable if the provision or access to that care occurred within Maine’s borders, asserting jurisdiction over those matters.
It bars cooperation with out-of-state subpoenas and arrest warrants for gender-affirming care and abortion that happen within the state. It even protects doctors who provide gender-affirming care and abortion from certain adverse actions by medical boards, malpractice insurance, and other regulating entities, shielding those providers from attempts to economically harm them through out-of-state legislation designed to dissuade them from providing care.
You can see the findings section of the bill here:
The bill also explicitly enshrines the World Professional Association of Transgender Health’s Standards of Care, which have been the target of right-wing disinformation campaigns, into state law for the coverage of trans healthcare:
The bill is said to be necessary due to attempts to prosecute doctors and seek information from patients across state lines. In recent months, attorneys general in other states have attempted to obtain health care data on trans patients who traveled to obtain care. According to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, attorneys general in Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, and Texas attempted to obtain detailed medical records “to terrorize transgender teens in their states … opening the door to criminalizing women’s private reproductive health care choices.”
The most blatant of these attempts was from the attorney general of Texas, who, according to the Senate Finance Committee, “sent demands to at least two non-Texas entities.” One of these entities was Seattle Children’s Hospital, which received a letter threatening administrators with arrest unless they sent data on Texas patients traveling to Seattle to obtain gender-affirming care.
Seattle Children’s Hospital settled that case out of court this week, agreeing to withdraw its Texas business registration in return for Texas dropping its investigation. This likely will have no impact on Seattle Children’s Hospital, which has stated it did not treat any youth via telemedicine or in person in Texas; the hospital will be able to continue treating Texas youth who travel outside of Texas to obtain their care. That settlement was likely compelling due to a nearly identical law in Washington that barred out-of-state investigations on trans care obtained solely in the state of Washington.
The bill has faced a rocky road to passage. A similar bill was debated in January, but after coming under intense attack from anti-trans activists who misleadingly called it a “transgender trafficking bill,” the bill was voluntarily withdrawn by its sponsor.
When LD 227 was introduced, it faced even more attacks from Gaines and Libs of TikTok. These attacks were followed by bomb threats that forced the evacuation of the legislature, promising “death to pedophiles” and stating that a bomb would detonate within a few hours in the capitol building.
Despite these threats, legislators strengthened both the abortion and gender-affirming care provisions and pressed forward, passing the bill into law. Provisions found in the new bill include protecting people who “aid and assist” gender-affirming care and abortion, protections against court orders from other states for care obtained in Maine, and even protections against adverse actions by health insurance and malpractice insurance providers, which have been recent targets of out-of-state legislation aimed at financially discouraging doctors from providing gender-affirming care and abortion care even in states where it is legal.
See a few of the extensive health insurance and malpractice provisions here:
Speaking about the bill, Gia Drew, executive director of Equality Maine, said in a statement, “We are thrilled to see LD 227, the shield bill, be signed into law by Gov. Mills. Thanks to our pro equality and pro reproductive choice elected officials who refused to back down in the face of disinformation. This bill couldn’t come into effect at a better time, as more than 40 percent of states across the country have either banned or attempted to block access to reproductive care, which includes abortions, as well as transgender healthcare for minors. Thanks to our coalition partners who worked tirelessly to phone bank, lobby, and get this bill over the finish line to protect community health.”
Destie Hohman Sprague of the Maine Women’s Lobby celebrated the passage of the bill despite threats of violence, saying in a statement, “A gender-just Maine ensures that all Mainers have access to quality health care that supports their mental and physical wellbeing and bodily autonomy, including comprehensive reproductive and gender-affirming care. We celebrate the passage of LD 227, which helps us meet that goal. Still, the patterns of violence and disinformation ahead of the vote reflected the growing connections between misogyny, extremism, and anti-democratic threats and actions. We must continue to advocate for policies that protect bodily autonomy, and push back against extremist rhetoric that threatens our states’ rights and our citizens’ freedoms.”
The decision to pass the legislation comes as the Biden administration released updated HIPAA protections that protect “reproductive health care” from out-of-state prosecutions and investigations.
Although the definition of “reproductive health care” is broad in the new HIPAA regulations, it is uncertain whether they will include gender-affirming care. For at least 16 states, though, gender-affirming care is now explicitly protected by state law and shielded from out-of-state legislation, providing trans people and those seeking abortions with protections as the fight increasingly crosses state lines.
****************************************************************************
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.
After Biden signs TikTok ban its CEO vows federal court battle
Malcolm Kenyatta could become the first LGBTQ statewide elected official in Pa.
Bowser budget proposal calls for $5.25 million for 2025 World Pride
White House debuts action plan targeting pollutants in drinking water
Health care for Marylanders with HIV is facing huge cuts this summer
Daniel Zamudio murderer’s parole request denied
State Department releases annual human rights report
‘Amm(i)gone’ explores family, queerness, and faith
Joe Vogel campaign holds ‘Big Gay Canvass Kickoff’
