Connect with us

homepage news

One year after marriage ruling, pockets of defiance remain

Counties in Alabama refuse to issue licenses to gay couples

Published

on

NOM, National Organization for Marriage, gay news, Washington Blade

NOM, National Organization for Marriage, gay news, Washington Blade

Resistance to same-sex marriage remains in certain pockets of the country. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The first anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that brought marriage equality to the entire country is on Sunday, but there are areas in which same-sex couples still face challenges in obtaining a marriage license.

Although the decision is overwhelmingly enforced throughout the U.S., the South remains a region where in some places same-sex couples aren’t assured a marriage licenses despite the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges finding that said banning gay nuptials is unconstitutional.

Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality, said same-sex couples by and large are able to marry in the South, but LGBT people in the region still face discrimination as a result of state laws that undermine their rights.

“A year into marriage equality we see two competing realities in the South,” Beach-Ferrera said. “On the one hand, same-sex couples are marrying across the South, living more openly and experiencing increasing support. But at the same time, anti-LGBT politicians are devising laws – like HB 1523 in Mississippi and SB 2 and HB 2 in North Carolina ā€” that are a backlash to Obergefell and that target the LGBT community for continued discrimination. LGBT Southerners navigate the tension between these realities everyday in countless ways.”

Alabama

Alabama is the state where obstruction to same-sex marriage is the most pervasive. According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, 12 of the state’s 67 counties are still not granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Of these 12, 11 counties ā€” Choctaw, Washington, Marengo, Clarke, Covington, Geneva, Pike, Bibb, Autauga, Elmore and Cleburne ā€” are enforcing a “no licenses” policy to all couples, gay or straight, in the aftermath of the decision. Another county, Coosa, is issuing licenses, but says it’s unable to grant them to same-sex couples because of “technical difficulties.”

Brock Boone, staff attorney for the ACLU of Alabama, said she was told by the clerk these technical difficulties started around the time of “this same-sex stuff.”

“I asked her in December when they plan to fix it, and she was unsure,” Boone said. “I asked in February when it has no been fixed, again she was unsure. Then I asked in June, still unsure and no plans for it to be fixed. They have been marrying opposite-sex couples since Obergefell, but have not married any same-sex couples.”

Unlike other states, Alabama has seen additional confusion despite the Obergefell decision as a result of now suspended state Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Alabama Supreme Court insisting federal court decisions on same-sex marriage don’t apply to the state. Even after the U.S. Supreme Court decision was handed down, the Alabama Supreme Court in March refused to withdraw its order against same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge Callie V. Granade, who issued the initial ruling in favor of same-sex marriage in Alabama, issued an order earlier this month clarifying marriage equality has come to the state despite “the failure of the Alabama Supreme Court to set aside its earlier mandamus order.”

Despite the order, Boone said “there is no indication” that after the latest ruling these counties will now issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but additional litigation could happen “once we have a couple willing to serve as plaintiffs.”

North Carolina

In North Carolina, an obstruction to marriage equality is Senate Bill 2, which enables magistrates in the state to “opt out” of performing marriages if they have a religious objection. Invoking the “opt out” means a magistrate cannot perform any marriage, gay or straight, for a six-month period. After the six months passes, the exemption can be renewed.

The legislature enacted the measure last year by overriding the veto of Gov. Pat McCrory, who’s now known for signing into law House Bill 2, the measure that blocked local pro-LGBT ordinances and banned transgender people from using the public restroom in schools and government buildings consistent with their gender identity. At the time of his veto, McCrory said “no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath.”

According to the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, a total of 29 magistrates as of this week have recused themselves from performing civil marriages in the state, but the names of magistrates whoā€™ve recused themselves arenā€™t public because that is protected by a public records law. The Judicial Branch has about 670 magistrates statewide.

The law stipulates a magistrate must be on hand to perform marriages in a county office and allows magistrates to assume that task if all officials in a particular invoke the exemption. Late last year, all magistrates in the McDowell County Clerk of Superior Court reportedly invoked the exemption, requiring magistrates from Rutherford County to fill in for officials and limiting the hours McDowell County offers marriage services.

Mississippi

In Mississippi, marriage equality may be compromised by the sweeping “religious freedom” bill recently signed into law by Gov. Phil Bryant. A component of law, which among other things allows businesses and individuals to deny services to LGBT people, permits clerks and registers of deeds to recuse themselves from facilitating same-sex marriages, although they must ensure the licensing of legally valid marriage, including same-sex marriages, aren’t impeded as a result.

Zakiya Summers, a spokesperson for the ACLU of Mississippi, said she’s unaware of same-sex couples being unable to obtain marriage licenses as a result of the law, but added it “plays an interfering role” in marriage equality.

“Bottom line is that when it comes to being able to earn a living, having a place to live, or being served by a business or government office, gay and transgender Mississippians should be treated like everyone else and not be discriminated against just because of who they love, who they are married to, or if theyā€™re unmarried,” Summers said. “They should not have to deal with a separate system with separate rules.”

At least three federal lawsuits are challenging Mississippi’s “religious freedom” law. This week, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves refused to block enforcement of the law as litigation against it remains ongoing on the basis of no “imminent risk of injury.”

Texas

In Texas, at least one county clerk ā€” Molly Criner of Irion County ā€” has suggested she would deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, although none has apparently sought a marriage license in her office.

Criner in the aftermath of the Obergefell ruling pledged to reject the decision ā€” or even allow deputies in her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples ā€” comparing herself to those in Nazi Germany who refused to help the government hunt down Jewish people.

“This, of course, is something the voters of Texas have voted on and come to a different conclusion,” Criner said. “It’s something that our legislators have come to a different conclusion about. I was dismayed, of course, with the ruling, and do not believe that lines up with God’s law and God’s plan for us.”

On Wednesday, Criner told the Washington Blade she won’t “discuss marriage policy over the phone” when asked if she now would give a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

“But we can tell you that anybody who applies for a marriage license needs to come and bring ID and both parties need to show up, and then we’ll evaluate their qualifications at that time,” Criner said.

Asked by the Blade whether it’s still her position she would deny a marriage licenses to a same-sex couples, Criner replied, “We don’t discuss marriage policy over the phone.”

Kentucky

One state that previously had issues with issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but now apparently has resolved them, is Kentucky.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis gained notoriety last year for refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which led to a federal judge sentencing her to jail for three days for being in contempt of court. Although she agreed not to interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses, she removed her name from them and instead said they were issued “pursuant to federal court order.”

Another clerk, Casey County Casey Davis (no relation to Kim Davis,) had also pledged to defy the Supreme Court ruling and halted the distribution of marriage licenses to all couples in his office. In October, Davis at least partially relented, saying he would begin to distribute marriage licenses in his office, although not to same-sex couples.

But that seems to have changed. On Wednesday when the Blade reach out to Davis’ office over the phone, Jamie McGowan, who identified himself as a clerk who works with Davis, replied “yes” when asked if a same-sex couple would be eligible to receive a marriage license in that office.

Chris Hartmann, director of the Kentucky-based Fairness Campaign, said to his knowledge “there are no counties where marriage licenses are being denied” in his state.

In fact, Hartmann said LGBT advocates won a victory on marriage licenses with the support of Kim Davis and newly-elected Republican Gov. Matt Bevin.

“The Kentucky Senate proposed separate but equal marriage licenses ā€” one for straight couples that said ‘Bride and Groom,’ and one for LGBTQ couples that said ‘Party 1 and Party 2,” Hartmann said. “After much debate, both Davis and Bevin endorsed our proposed single marriage license form that allows people to check a box to identify as ‘Bride,’ ‘Groom,’ or ‘Spouse.’ After an initial defeat, the measure passed both the House and Senate unanimously.”

Evan Wolfson, former president of the now closed Freedom to Marry, denied the pockets of marriage inequality in the country undermine the significance of the marriage decision.

“The fact that there is a sprinkling of acting out and posturing doesn’t take away from the victory, the momentum, and the fact that more than 1,000,000 gay people have now married in the U.S., with many more to come here and around the world,” Wolfson said. “And we keep working.”

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