National
‘New Yorkers have been betrayed’
The defeat of same-sex marriage legislation in the New York State Senate last week was a devastating blow to gay rights supporters, leaving many to wonder how the bill could fail after its advocates had expressed confidence in the measure’s passage.
The New York State Senate on Dec. 2 voted 24-38 against the legalization of same-sex marriage, a lopsided margin that raised questions for those who were watching the bill’s progress.
State Sen. Tom Duane, who’s gay, was the prime sponsor of the Senate marriage legislation. He had media outlets he was “optimistic” about the proposal’s chances before senators killed the bill.
Duane, who didn’t respond to DC Agenda’s request for an interview, issued a statement saying he felt “betrayed” following the vote.
“Promises made were not honored,” he said. “The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, and all fair-minded New Yorkers have been betrayed. I am enraged, deeply disappointed and profoundly saddened by the vote today.”
Groups advocating for passage of the marriage bill included Empire State Pride Agenda and Gill Action Fund. Those organizations didn’t respond to DC Agenda’s request for comment.
Dan Pinello, a gay government professor at the City University of New York, said the Senate was unable to pass the marriage bill because the Democratic Party, which narrowly controls the Senate, 32-30, is “in disarray, basically — not only on this particular policy issue, but more generally.”
“There are a number of factions within the Democratic caucus in the Senate that makes cohesiveness in that caucus extremely difficult, unlike the Republican caucus, which is much more united in its position,” he said. “I think the vote [Dec. 2] reflected that.”
Marty Rouse, the Human Rights Campaign’s national field director, also said he thinks the marriage bill failed because of the politically tenuous situation in the Senate. He noted that Democrats briefly lost control of the chamber in a coup earlier this year before regaining leadership.
“It’s difficult to pass legislation when you have a change in Senate leadership, a new and tenuous Senate majority,” he said. “There is a lot of politics in play in passing any sort of legislation.”
Rouse said the marriage bill failed not because of the merits of the legislation, but because of political issues in the Senate.
“This has much more to do about politics and very little, if anything, to do about the merits of the marriage bill itself,” he said.
The legislation failed in the Senate even though the bill had strong support in the Assembly, which approved the measure for a third time Dec. 2, 88-51. Gov. David Paterson (D) also was a strong advocate for the marriage bill.
Pinello said the legislation failed in the Senate — but passed in the Assembly — because senators “are out of touch with their constituents.”
He said polling data shows a majority of Long Island residents favor same-sex marriage and noted that three-quarters of that region’s Senate delegation voted against the marriage bill.
Eight Democratic senators voted against the marriage bill Wednesday. All Republican senators voted against it.
Jeff Cook, a legislative adviser for the Log Cabin Republicans who had lobbied GOP lawmakers on the bill, said there was no Republican backing because the dissent among Democrats meant GOP support wouldn’t have made a difference.
Before the vote, Cook had said he was expecting Republican votes in favor of the legislation.
“Sadly, we didn’t lose on the merits, but we lost because of politicians’ lack of political courage to do the right thing,” he said. “Seeing insufficient support on the Democratic side, key Republicans communicated that they were unwilling to follow their conscience and take a tough political vote if they couldn’t make the difference on a losing bill.”
Pinello said Republican Assembly member Dede Scozzafava’s recent failed bid for Congress also had an effect on GOP senators. Scozzafava, who has voted in favor of same-sex marriage three times, ran for Congress in a special election this year, but withdrew her candidacy after a third-party conservative candidate challenged her because of her position on marriage, among other issues.
“I think there was some fallout as a result of that on the Senate Republican side,” Pinello said. “I can’t believe that the Republican caucus is so uniformly opposed to marriage equality that not even one or more would have favored it.”
Although the bill was voted down, Pinello said having the vote last week was appropriate because “to keep putting it off is just unacceptable as a political matter.”
“So, now that their votes are recorded, activists can try to target those people — especially in the Democratic Party, but also Republicans — who voted against marriage equality, in next year’s legislative election cycle,” he said.
Asked whether the bill should have come to the floor, Rouse replied, “I’m not going to second guess the decisions that were made.”
But the failed attempt means supporters of same-sex marriage will have to wait before marriage rights for gay couples become available in New York.
Rouse said there is no reason why supporters shouldn’t work to bring the bill up again in the “very near future,” and said it’s possible for Senate leadership to find a way to have another vote within a few weeks.
Another 14 months would be the longest it would take to bring the marriage bill to the floor of the Senate again, Rouse said.
“If we have to have this bill come up after the elections, clearly the 2010 election and who’s running again for office … all of that will be important,” he said. “Supporters of marriage equality and opponents of marriage equality will be focusing like a laser beam on the primary and general elections in 2010.”
Pinello, however, said that 2013 might be a more realistic time for same-sex marriage to pass in New York.
He said after Senate districts are redrawn following the 2010 Census, there would be an opportunity to elect more supporters of same-sex marriage to the Senate in the 2012 elections.
With Democrats in control of both chambers of the New York Legislature, Senate districts could be redrawn in ways that are more favorable to Democrats, meaning more supporters of gay nuptials could be elected to the Senate in 2012 to take office in 2013 and vote for marriage legislation.
“I think it’s possible that there won’t be a favorable vote in the New York State Senate until 2013 on the issue of marriage equality — four years from now,” he said.
Still, Rouse said he was optimistic and he didn’t think there’s “anyone involved in politics in New York State that doesn’t think there is … support for this bill becoming law in the near future.”
He noted that State Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. was the only lawmaker to speak out against the marriage bill on the Senate floor and no Republicans voiced opposition during debate.
“That tells me there is support for this bill waiting for the right time for this bill to come up,” he said. “And so, for me, it’s not a matter of if this is going to become law, it’s a matter of when this bill is going to become law, and for various reasons, unfortunately, early this week was not the right time.”
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
