Connect with us

homepage news

One year later, Kaplan reflects on victory against DOMA

Lesbian attorney ‘certain’ Supreme Court will rule for nationwide marriage equality

Published

on

Robbie Kaplan, Roberta Kaplan, GLAD, DOMA, gay news, Washington Blade
Robbie Kaplan, Roberta Kaplan, GLAD, DOMA, gay news, Washington Blade

Lesbian attorney Roberta Kaplan successfully argued against DOMA before the Supreme Court (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key).

It was on June 26, 2013, that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision against the Defense of Marriage Act, striking down Section 3 of the 1996 law, which prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

On the one year anniversary of the decision, more than 20 courts have drawn on that reasoning to rule against state bans on same-sex marriage and the Obama administration has interpreted the decision to extend federal benefits nationwide to married same-sex couples for the purposes of taxes, immigration, employer pension and other matters.

The lesbian attorney who responsible who successfully arguing the case was Roberta Kaplan, a partner Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.Ā Along with the American Civil Liberties Union, she represented lesbian widow Edith Windsor, who sued the federal government because she had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer.

Speaking with the Washington Blade via phone from California, the Ohio native said one year after the ruling she still has a hard time registering she was responsible for successfully litigating Windsor v. United States before the Supreme Court.

“I, like everyone else, wake up in morning and make myself a pot of coffee and get my son ready for school, but there’s still times when I wake in the morning or something happens like today’s decisions where I have to pinch myself,” Kaplan said. “It’s kind of amazing; I have to pinch myself to remind myself that it was me.”

And although she was denied intervention in two cases working their way back up to the Supreme Court, Kaplan said she has no doubt that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of marriage equality when one or more of those cases reach the justices.

“I don’t think anyone disagrees what it would be,” Kaplan said. “Again, we have this unique situation in legal history where there’s unanimity among judges, some of whom were appointed by Democrats, some of whom were Republicans. I expect that to continue and I expect that to continue all the way up to the Supreme Court.”

Read on for the full Q&A between Kaplan and the Blade:

Washington Blade: Have you seen the rulings today against the Utah and the Indiana bans and do you think there’s anything striking about them?

Roberta Kaplan: I haven’t had time, believe it or not, to read it. I’m in California. So, I haven’t time to read it fully yet. But I’ve seen the Tenth Circuit decision and it’s really incredible.

I always thought we’d win this issue. And I gave a speech last summer at an HRC dinner called, “The Windsor Decision: The Functional Equivalent of the Battle of Normandy.”

But I don’t think ā€” it’s hard to put myself back in my head a year ago ā€” I don’t think that I would have ever believed back then that the change would have happened this fast. And I don’t think that I ever would have predicted that the first circuit decision to come out was going to come out from the Tenth Circuit affirming a decision out of Utah.

So that part of it is incredible. I think the ultimate result, where we’re headed, once Windsor came out, that was a fore-ordained conclusion, but I think the speed of it has just been astounding.

Blade: So you’re surprised there hasn’t been a single court that has upheld a marriage ban since the DOMA decision?

Kaplan: I don’t know if I’m surprised; I’m certainly elated. I’m very superstitious. If you count the SmithKline en banc in the Ninth Circuit, that makes it 28. If we’re doing our math right, I think we are, there have been 28 federal or state decisions post-Windsor going on to extend rights to gay people. Every time one comes down I’m elated, and every time one comes down I have to knock on wood so that keep up the winning streak.

I can’t think of any other area in which the courts have achieved this degree of unanimity. You just don’t see it other areas of the law to this degree.

Blade: How often do you talk to Edith Windsor and how do you think she’s processed being the face of that decision?

Kaplan: I talk to Edie a lot. I saw her on Monday night. There’s Trailblazer film that’s going to be aired on Thursday. We were together Monday night. I talk to her often. She turned 85 last Friday, so we were all celebrating her birthday. I think the way she’s taken this in is just absolute and complete joy and gratitude. I don’t have to speculate because that’s what she says.

Think about it. What a way to end your life! You have this incredible moment of being the icon of the gay rights movement. And you know what? She should be.

Blade: How would evaluate the Obama administration’s implementation of the DOMA decision?

Kaplan: That’s another thing that’s truly an amazing development. When I argued the case, I got a question on this point from, I think it was Justice Alito. I gave the example that as far as a technical basis was concerned that if a couple married in New York and the moved to North Carolina, based on the technical definition in our case, [they’d] still have to pay an estate tax because under North Carolina law, their marriage wouldn’t be recognized.Ā I didn’t anticipate then that the Obama administration would interpret some of agency statutes the way that it did.

Blade: But they determined they could not extend certain Social Security and veterans benefits to married same-sex couples in states without marriage equality. Do you think that was error and they could have read the Windsor to extend those benefits?

Kaplan: You’re talking about the two areas where they have the statutory problem? The short answer: no. I think that they’ve done literally everything that they possibly could. I think that their heart and their mind is completely in the right place, but they’re good lawyers, like I hope I’m a good lawyer, and when the statutory language says something, short of an act of Congress, they have to comply with the statutory language.Ā Even in those two areas, it’s my understanding that they really did everything they possibly could to ameliorate the issue.

Blade: Which of the pending marriage cases do you think is the best one to go to the Supreme Court?

Kaplan: I don’t think there’s any way to answer to that question. They all raise essentially identical issues. They all have very similar plaintiffs presenting very similar sets of issues. I think that decision is up to the justice of Supreme Court.

Another thing that may come up now, I understand the Tenth Circuit issued a stay, and the stay is probably until the Supreme Court acts on cert petition that is filed. So, if the stay is going to continue I think the court should feel pressure to grant cert in that case because it’s unfair, I think, to force couples to not to be able to married without the Supreme Court decided that. It’s very possible that just by the timing of the Tenth Circuit would the issue into question.

Blade: Do you think it’s important for the Obama administration to weigh in on these cases by filing briefs or participating in oral arguments?

Kaplan: I presume that they will. Typically, the [U.S. solicitor general], in a case at the Supreme Court raising a federal constitutional issue, would weigh in. They’ve already weighed in, both in Windsor and Perry, and Perry presented identical issue to the issue now being raised, so I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t weigh in again.

Blade: The Prop 8 case has gotten a lot of attention recently. Ted Olson and David Boies are trumpeting the lawsuit as a defining civil rights case of our time. Do you think they’re justified in promoting its importance?

Kaplan: I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to weigh in…My job was and is to represent Edie Windsor and it’s not involve myself in that kind of controversy. I just don’t think it’s appropriate.

Blade: You tried to join into the Utah and Ohio marriage case, but the Tenth and Sixth circuits denied those requests. Are you disappointed that didn’t happen?

Kaplan: Well, no one like to lose. You win some, you lose some. We lost those motions. It is very unusual to get intervention granted at the circuit court, so I can’t say it was entirely surprising, but then we filed amicus briefs in both cases, and I assume we’ll continue to do so if either of them goes up. I think the issues are being extremely well covered by the advocates involved. I’m not losing sleep over it, that’s for sure.

Blade: Are you going to try again with any of other marriage cases making their way up to the Supreme Court?

Kaplan: For me, it all depends on clients. I have to have clients who want me to do it, and I had clients who wanted me to do that in the Tenth and the Sixth. I think we are actually going to file an amicus brief in the Fifth like almost identical to the ones we already filed, but it all depends on whether any clients out there reach out to me.

Blade: Have clients had those conversations with you yet?

Kaplan: Like I said, we filed amicus briefs in the Tenth and the Sixth. I think there are people who would like us to file one in the Fifth. I’m not aware of anything else.

Blade: What’s your prediction for what will happen when one of these cases reaches the Supreme Court. When did you think we’ll have a ruling on marriage equality nationwide?

Kaplan: As to the result, I don’t think anyone disagrees what it would be. Again, we this unique situation in legal history where there’s unanimity among judges, some of whom were appointed by Democrats, some of whom were Republicans. I expect that to continue and I expect that to continue all the way up to the Supreme Court.

So, I think all the judges who have reached an opinion at this point are right. I think Windsor does require there to be a recognition under the federal constitution of gay couples’ right to marry ā€” both under equal protection and due process. I think the result is certain.

As to the timing, I think that very much depends on the inclinations of the justices, which I, at least, don’t have the ability to read. But I think the timing of the Tenth Circuit decision and whether or not there’s a stay would have a big impact on that.

Blade: Looking back a year after that decision, did you ever think you’d part of something so big?

Kaplan: There’s an easy answer to that, and that is “no.” Last summer in particular, I think for several months after, I used to kind of feel like the guy in…the paintings where the guy is kind of floating over his own body and his own life in just a state of elation. And that’s the way I felt a long time.

I went back to a normal life. I, like everyone else, wake up in morning and make myself a pot of coffee and get my son ready for school, but there’s still times when I wake in the morning or something happens like today’s decisions where I have to pinch myself. It’s kind of amazing; I have to pinch myself to remind myself that it was me.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

homepage news

Honoring the legacy of New Orleansā€™ 1973 UpStairs Lounge fire

Why the arson attack that killed 32 gay men still resonates 50 years later

Published

on

Fifty years ago this week, 32 gay men were killed in an arson attack on the UpStairs Lounge in New Orleans. (Photo by G.E. Arnold/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

On June 23 of last year, I held the microphone as a gay man in the New Orleans City Council Chamber and related a lost piece of queer history to the seven council members. I told this story to disabuse all New Orleanians of the notion that silence and accommodation, in the face of institutional and official failures, are a path to healing.  

The story I related to them began on a typical Sunday night at a second-story bar on the fringe of New Orleansā€™ French Quarter in 1973, where working-class men would gather around a white baby grand piano and belt out the lyrics to a song that was the anthem of their hidden community, ā€œUnited We Standā€ by the Brotherhood of Man. 

ā€œUnited we stand,ā€ the men would sing together, ā€œdivided we fallā€ ā€” the words epitomizing the ethos of their beloved UpStairs Lounge bar, an egalitarian free space that served as a forerunner to todayā€™s queer safe havens. 

Around that piano in the 1970s Deep South, gays and lesbians, white and Black queens, Christians and non-Christians, and even early gender minorities could cast aside the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the times to find acceptance and companionship for a moment. 

For regulars, the UpStairs Lounge was a miracle, a small pocket of acceptance in a broader world where their very identities were illegal. 

On the Sunday night of June 24, 1973, their voices were silenced in a murderous act of arson that claimed 32 lives and still stands as the deadliest fire in New Orleans history ā€” and the worst mass killing of gays in 20th century America. 

As 13 fire companies struggled to douse the inferno, police refused to question the chief suspect, even though gay witnesses identified and brought the soot-covered man to officers idly standing by. This suspect, an internally conflicted gay-for-pay sex worker named Rodger Dale Nunez, had been ejected from the UpStairs Lounge screaming the word “burn” minutes before, but New Orleans police rebuffed the testimony of fire survivors on the street and allowed Nunez to disappear.

As the fire raged, police denigrated the deceased to reporters on the street: ā€œSome thieves hung out there, and you know this was a queer bar.ā€ 

For days afterward, the carnage met with official silence. With no local gay political leaders willing to step forward, national Gay Liberation-era figures like Rev. Troy Perry of the Metropolitan Community Church flew in to ā€œhelp our bereaved brothers and sistersā€ ā€” and shatter officialdomā€™s code of silence. 

Perry broke local taboos by holding a press conference as an openly gay man. ā€œItā€™s high time that you people, in New Orleans, Louisiana, got the message and joined the rest of the Union,ā€ Perry said. 

Two days later, on June 26, 1973, as families hesitated to step forward to identify their kin in the morgue, UpStairs Lounge owner Phil Esteve stood in his badly charred bar, the air still foul with death. He rebuffed attempts by Perry to turn the fire into a call for visibility and progress for homosexuals. 

ā€œThis fire had very little to do with the gay movement or with anything gay,ā€ Esteve told a reporter from The Philadelphia Inquirer. ā€œI do not want my bar or this tragedy to be used to further any of their causes.ā€ 

Conspicuously, no photos of Esteve appeared in coverage of the UpStairs Lounge fire or its aftermath ā€” and the bar owner also remained silent as he witnessed police looting the ashes of his business. 

ā€œPhil said the cash register, juke box, cigarette machine and some wallets had money removed,ā€ recounted Esteveā€™s friend Bob McAnear, a former U.S. Customs officer. ā€œPhil wouldnā€™t report it because, if he did, police would never allow him to operate a bar in New Orleans again.ā€ 

The next day, gay bar owners, incensed at declining gay bar traffic amid an atmosphere of anxiety, confronted Perry at a clandestine meeting. ā€œHow dare you hold your damn news conferences!ā€ one business owner shouted. 

Ignoring calls for gay self-censorship, Perry held a 250-person memorial for the fire victims the following Sunday, July 1, culminating in mourners defiantly marching out the front door of a French Quarter church into waiting news cameras. ā€œReverend Troy Perry awoke several sleeping giants, me being one of them,ā€ recalled Charlene Schneider, a lesbian activist who walked out of that front door with Perry.

(Photo by G.E. Arnold/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

Esteve doubted the UpStairs Lounge storyā€™s capacity to rouse gay political fervor. As the coroner buried four of his former patrons anonymously on the edge of town, Esteve quietly collected at least $25,000 in fire insurance proceeds. Less than a year later, he used the money to open another gay bar called the Post Office, where patrons of the UpStairs Lounge ā€” some with visible burn scars ā€” gathered but were discouraged from singing ā€œUnited We Stand.ā€ 

New Orleans cops neglected to question the chief arson suspect and closed the investigation without answers in late August 1973. Gay elites in the cityā€™s power structure began gaslighting the mourners who marched with Perry into the news cameras, casting suspicion on their memories and re-characterizing their moment of liberation as a stunt. 

When a local gay journalist asked in April 1977, ā€œWhere are the gay activists in New Orleans?,ā€ Esteve responded that there were none, because none were needed. ā€œWe donā€™t feel weā€™re discriminated against,ā€ Esteve said. ā€œNew Orleans gays are different from gays anywhere elseā€¦ Perhaps there is some correlation between the amount of gay activism in other cities and the degree of police harassment.ā€ 

(Photo by H.J. Patterson/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

An attitude of nihilism and disavowal descended upon the memory of the UpStairs Lounge victims, goaded by Esteve and fellow gay entrepreneurs who earned their keep via gay patrons drowning their sorrows each night instead of protesting the injustices that kept them drinking. 

Into the 1980s, the story of the UpStairs Lounge all but vanished from conversation ā€” with the exception of a few sanctuaries for gay political debate such as the local lesbian bar Charleneā€™s, run by the activist Charlene Schneider. 

By 1988, the 15th anniversary of the fire, the UpStairs Lounge narrative comprised little more than a call for better fire codes and indoor sprinklers. UpStairs Lounge survivor Stewart Butler summed it up: ā€œA tragedy that, as far as I know, no good came of.ā€ 

Finally, in 1991, at Stewart Butler and Charlene Schneiderā€™s nudging, the UpStairs Lounge story became aligned with the crusade of liberated gays and lesbians seeking equal rights in Louisiana. The halls of power responded with intermittent progress. The New Orleans City Council, horrified by the story but not yet ready to take its look in the mirror, enacted an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and public accommodations that Dec. 12 ā€” more than 18 years after the fire. 

ā€œI believe the fire was the catalyst for the anger to bring us all to the table,ā€ Schneider told The Times-Picayune, a tacit rebuke to Esteveā€™s strategy of silent accommodation. Even Esteve seemed to change his stance with time, granting a full interview with the first UpStairs Lounge scholar Johnny Townsend sometime around 1989. 

Most of the figures in this historic tale are now deceased. Whatā€™s left is an enduring story that refused to go gently. The story now echoes around the world ā€” a musical about the UpStairs Lounge fire recently played in Tokyo, translating the gay underworld of the 1973 French Quarter for Japanese audiences.

When I finished my presentation to the City Council last June, I looked up to see the seven council members in tears. Unanimously, they approved a resolution acknowledging the historic failures of city leaders in the wake of the UpStairs Lounge fire. 

Council members personally apologized to UpStairs Lounge families and survivors seated in the chamber in a symbolic act that, though it could not bring back those who died, still mattered greatly to those whose pain had been denied, leaving them to grieve alone. At long last, official silence and indifference gave way to heartfelt words of healing. 

The way Americans remember the past is an active, ongoing process. Our collective memory is malleable, but it matters because it speaks volumes about our maturity as a people, how we acknowledge the pastā€™s influence in our lives, and how it shapes the examples we set for our youth. Do we grapple with difficult truths, or do we duck accountability by defaulting to nostalgia and bluster? Or worse, do we simply ignore the past until it fades into a black hole of ignorance and indifference? 

I believe that a factual retelling of the UpStairs Lounge tragedy ā€” and how, 50 years onward, it became known internationally ā€” resonates beyond our current divides. It reminds queer and non-queer Americans that ignoring the past holds back the present, and that silence is no cure for what ails a participatory nation. 

Silence isolates. Silence gaslights and shrouds. It preserves the power structures that scapegoat the disempowered. 

Solidarity, on the other hand, unites. Solidarity illuminates a path forward together. Above all, solidarity transforms the downtrodden into a resounding chorus of citizens ā€” in the spirit of voices who once gathered ā€˜round a white baby grand piano and sang, joyfully and loudly, ā€œUnited We Stand.ā€ 

(Photo by Philip Ames/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

Robert W. Fieseler is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of ā€œTinderbox: the Untold Story of the Up Stairs Lounge Fire and the Rise of Gay Liberation.ā€

Continue Reading

homepage news

New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences

Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court is to set consider the case of 303 Creative, which seeks to refuse design services for same-sex weddings. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court, after a decision overturning Roe v. Wade that still leaves many reeling, is starting a new term with justices slated to revisit the issue of LGBTQ rights.

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court will return to the issue of whether or not providers of custom-made goods can refuse service to LGBTQ customers on First Amendment grounds. In this case, the business owner is Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado who wants to opt out of providing her graphic design services for same-sex weddings despite the civil rights law in her state.

Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, said in an interview with the Blade, “it’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake” for LGBTQ people depending on the outcome of the case.

“This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person ā€” if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law,” Pizer said. “And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having a non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you.”

The upcoming arguments and decision in the 303 Creative case mark a return to LGBTQ rights for the Supreme Court, which had no lawsuit to directly address the issue in its previous term, although many argued the Dobbs decision put LGBTQ rights in peril and threatened access to abortion for LGBTQ people.

And yet, the 303 Creative case is similar to other cases the Supreme Court has previously heard on the providers of services seeking the right to deny services based on First Amendment grounds, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In both of those cases, however, the court issued narrow rulings on the facts of litigation, declining to issue sweeping rulings either upholding non-discrimination principles or First Amendment exemptions.

Pizer, who signed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to 303 Creative, said the case is “similar in the goals” of the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation on the basis they both seek exemptions to the same non-discrimination law that governs their business, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, and seek “to further the social and political argument that they should be free to refuse same-sex couples or LGBTQ people in particular.”

“So there’s the legal goal, and it connects to the social and political goals and in that sense, it’s the same as Masterpiece,” Pizer said. “And so there are multiple problems with it again, as a legal matter, but also as a social matter, because as with the religion argument, it flows from the idea that having something to do with us is endorsing us.”

One difference: the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation stemmed from an act of refusal of service after owner, Jack Phillips, declined to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. No act of discrimination in the past, however, is present in the 303 Creative case. The owner seeks to put on her website a disclaimer she won’t provide services for same-sex weddings, signaling an intent to discriminate against same-sex couples rather than having done so.

As such, expect issues of standing ā€” whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit ā€” to be hashed out in arguments as well as whether the litigation is ripe for review as justices consider the case. It’s not hard to see U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to lead the court to reach less sweeping decisions (sometimes successfully, and sometimes in the Dobbs case not successfully) to push for a decision along these lines.

Another key difference: The 303 Creative case hinges on the argument of freedom of speech as opposed to the two-fold argument of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise in the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation. Although 303 Creative requested in its petition to the Supreme Court review of both issues of speech and religion, justices elected only to take up the issue of free speech in granting a writ of certiorari (or agreement to take up a case). Justices also declined to accept another question in the petition request of review of the 1990 precedent in Smith v. Employment Division, which concluded states can enforce neutral generally applicable laws on citizens with religious objections without violating the First Amendment.

Representing 303 Creative in the lawsuit is Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has sought to undermine civil rights laws for LGBTQ people with litigation seeking exemptions based on the First Amendment, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in a Sept. 12 legal brief signed by her and other attorneys that a decision in favor of 303 Creative boils down to a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.

“Colorado and the United States still contend that CADA only regulates sales transactions,” the brief says. “But their cases do not apply because they involve non-expressive activities: selling BBQ, firing employees, restricting school attendance, limiting club memberships, and providing room access. Coloradoā€™s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actorā€™s speech.”

Pizer, however, pushed back strongly on the idea a decision in favor of 303 Creative would be as focused as Alliance Defending Freedom purports it would be, arguing it could open the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people.

“One way to put it is art tends to be in the eye of the beholder,” Pizer said. “Is something of a craft, or is it art? I feel like I’m channeling Lily Tomlin. Remember ‘soup and art’? We have had an understanding that whether something is beautiful or not is not the determining factor about whether something is protected as artistic expression. There’s a legal test that recognizes if this is speech, whose speech is it, whose message is it? Would anyone who was hearing the speech or seeing the message understand it to be the message of the customer or of the merchants or craftsmen or business person?”

Despite the implications in the case for LGBTQ rights, 303 Creative may have supporters among LGBTQ people who consider themselves proponents of free speech.

One joint friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, written by Dale Carpenter, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues the case is an opportunity to affirm the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive.

“Distinguishing expressive from non-expressive products in some contexts might be hard, but the Tenth Circuit agreed that Smithā€™s product does not present a hard case,” the brief says. “Yet that court (and Colorado) declined to recognize any exemption for products constituting speech. The Tenth Circuit has effectively recognized a state interest in subjecting the creation of speech itself to antidiscrimination laws.”

Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet set, but may be announced soon. Set to defend the state of Colorado and enforcement of its non-discrimination law in the case is Colorado Solicitor General Eric Reuel Olson. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would grant the request to the U.S. solicitor general to present arguments before the justices on behalf of the Biden administration.

With a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has recently scrapped the super-precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion, supporters of LGBTQ rights may think the outcome of the case is all but lost, especially amid widespread fears same-sex marriage would be next on the chopping block. After the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 303 Creative in the lawsuit, the simple action by the Supreme Court to grant review in the lawsuit suggests they are primed to issue a reversal and rule in favor of the company.

Pizer, acknowledging the call to action issued by LGBTQ groups in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, conceded the current Supreme Court issuing the ruling in this case is “a terrifying prospect,” but cautioned the issue isn’t so much the makeup of the court but whether or not justices will continue down the path of abolishing case law.

“I think the question that we’re facing with respect to all of the cases or at least many of the cases that are in front of the court right now, is whether this court is going to continue on this radical sort of wrecking ball to the edifice of settled law and seemingly a goal of setting up whole new structures of what our basic legal principles are going to be. Are we going to have another term of that?” Pizer said. “And if so, that’s terrifying.”

Continue Reading

homepage news

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign

Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Published

on

Kelley Robinson (Screen capture via HRC YouTube)

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.

Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.

ā€œIā€™m honored and ready to lead HRC ā€” and our more than three million member-advocates ā€” as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,ā€ Robinson said. ā€œThis is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”

Kelley Robinson IS NAMED as The next human rights Campaign president

The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.

“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions ā€” and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.ā€

The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.

Kelley Robinson, Planned Parenthood, Cathy Chu, SMYAL, Supporting and Mentoring Youth Advocates and Leaders, Amy Nelson, Whitman-Walker Health, Sheroes of the Movement, Mayor's office of GLBT Affairs, gay news, Washington Blade
Kelley Robinson, seen here with Cathy Chu of SMYAL and Amy Nelson of Whitman-Walker Health, is the next Human Rights Campaign president. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular