Connect with us

National

Marriage was the story of the year in 2009

Published

on

Supporters of LGBT rights faced many ups and downs in 2009, but no issue proved as tumultuous or gained as much attention as the ongoing fight over marriage rights.

Alternating between legislative defeats in Maine and New York and victories in four states and Washington, D.C., the issue figured prominently into the national discourse. The momentum behind efforts to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples last year was unprecedented and often gave gay rights activists reason to celebrate.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, called the advancement of same-sex marriage in 2009 a ā€œcapstone to a decade of extraordinary progress.ā€

ā€œAt the end of the decade,ā€ he said, ā€œ[we have] five states plus the District of Columbia having the freedom to marry, others shimmering within reach and well more than a third of Americans living in a place where same-sex couples have at least some measure of statewide recognition and protection.ā€

M.V. Lee Badgett, a lesbian economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said the advancement of same-sex marriage is striking particularly in states that already allowed relationship recognition.

ā€œI think the main thing that we learned is that states are ready to legalize same-sex marriage and it happened in several places that have civil unions or domestic partnerships,ā€ she said. ā€œLegislators realized, [at] the request of their constituents, that those statuses were not the same.ā€

Joining Massachusetts and Connecticut this year in legalizing same-sex marriage were four states — Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire — as well as D.C. The victory in Maine was short-lived, though, as voters there overturned the decision in November through a ā€œpeople’s vetoā€ at the ballot box.

Social conservatives highlighted the loss of same-sex marriage in Maine — in addition to the failure of the New York State Senate to pass marriage legislation in December — as evidence of resistance to granting marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples throughout the country.

Jenny Tyree, marriage analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the repeal of the marriage law in Maine ā€œfurther clarifiedā€Ā that ā€œthe majority of Americans support the ā€˜one-man, one-woman’ definition of marriage.ā€

ā€œThere were judicial and legislative decisions that redefined marriage in a handful of states and in the District,ā€ she said. ā€œThat was disheartening, but ultimately, we’re pleased that Maine affirmed the decision of voters in 30 other states who say they did not want marriage to be redefined.ā€

But Wolfson cautioned against reading too much into Maine voters’ decision to overturn the marriage law, arguing that ā€œwe’ve been there before and when we stuck with it, we went on to win.ā€

ā€œLet’s remember that in 1998, the Maine Legislature passed a non-discrimination law, and that was overturned by the voters, too,ā€ he said. ā€œAnd then we passed it again in the legislature in 2000, and it was overturned again. And then we passed it a third time in 2005, and only then were we able to sustain it at the ballot.ā€

Wolfson said continuing the conversations about why marriage rights are important for same-sex couples will protect those rights in the future when they’re challenged.

ā€œMaine also showed that we have to push forward just a notch beyond where we are and bring over another small slice of people who have not yet seen the visibility of gay families,ā€ he said. ā€œIf we had had those conversations, and that greater bit of visibility with just 16,000 more people, we would have held the freedom to marry in Maine.ā€

In addition to the advancement of same-sex marriage rights, 2009 also saw greater support for gay nuptials among the electorate, according to recent polls.

One noteworthy poll from April published by Washington Post-ABC News found, for the first time, a plurality of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage. Among those polled, 49 percent said they favored marriage rights for same-sex couples, while 46 percent said they should be illegal.

Badgett said recent polling shows that while same-sex marriage still doesn’t enjoyĀ support from a majority of Americans, attitudes are changing.

ā€œThere’s not yet a majority, but there is increasing support,ā€ she said. ā€œAnd I think it’s quite possible that people that will change their minds over time.ā€

But Tyree discounted the recent polling data, and said the numbers don’t reflect what happens when same-sex marriage is brought to the voters in individual states.

ā€œIt seems like when they really have a chance to think about it, they decided to continue to define it between one man and one woman,ā€ she said. ā€œYes, the national polling has some merit, but it doesn’t seem to have been any real predictive factor at the state level.ā€

Polls also continue to show strong support for same-sex marriage among young people. The Washington Post-ABC News poll, for example, found that among responders under the age of 35, two-thirds supported same-sex marriage.

But despite that level of support, Tyree said the position of young people on same-sex marriage is ā€œreally still in play.ā€

ā€œI think that the jury is still out on what they will decide as they start families and become more aware of what’s at stake with the push for redefining marriage,ā€ she said. ā€œNothing is inevitable, and I think that that is true of how they currently feel about redefining marriage.ā€

Wolfson said the support for same-sex marriage among young people shows the battle can be won, but at the same time ā€œdoesn’t make the battle self-winning.ā€

ā€œWe have to mobilize those young people; we have to engage them,ā€ he said. ā€œThere is no marriage without engagement, and there is no way to secure social justice without doing the work.ā€

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Second federal lawsuit filed against White House passport policy

Two of seven plaintiffs live in Md.

Published

on

Lambda Legal on April 25 filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people who are challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy.

The lawsuit, which Lambda Legal filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, alleges the policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers “has caused and is causing grave and immediate harm to transgender people like plaintiffs, in violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection.”

Two of the seven plaintiffs — Jill Tran and Peter Poe — live in Maryland. The State Department, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the federal government are defendants.

“The discriminatory passport policy exposes transgender U.S. citizens to harassment, abuse, and discrimination, in some cases endangering them abroad or preventing them from traveling, by forcing them to use identification documents that share private information against their wishes,” said Lambda Legal in a press release.

Zander Schlacter, a New York-based textile artist and designer, is the lead plaintiff.

The lawsuit notes he legally changed his name and gender in New York.

Schlacter less than a week before President Donald Trump’s inauguration “sent an expedited application to update his legal name on his passport, using form DS-5504.”

Trump once he took office signed an executive order that banned the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers. The lawsuit notes Schlacter received his new passport in February.

“The passport has his correct legal name, but now has an incorrect sex marker of ‘F’ or ‘female,'” notes the lawsuit. “Mr. Schlacter also received a letter from the State Department notifying him that ‘the date of birth, place of birth, name, or sex was corrected on your passport application,’ with ‘sex’ circled in red. The stated reason was ‘to correct your information to show your biological sex at birth.'”

“I, like many transgender people, experience fear of harassment or violence when moving through public spaces, especially where a photo ID is required,” said Schlacter in the press release that announced the lawsuit. “My safety is further at risk because of my inaccurate passport. I am unwilling to subject myself and my family to the threat of harassment and discrimination at the hands of border officials or anyone who views my passport.”

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an ā€œXā€ gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.

Lambda Legal represented Zzyym.

The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.

Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January. Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.

A federal judge in Boston earlier this month issued a preliminary injunction against the executive order.Ā  The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

HHS to retire 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth

Trevor Project warns the move will ‘put their lives at risk’

Published

on

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. appears on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in April 2024. (Screen capture via YouTube)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is planning to retire the national 988 crisis lifeline for LGBTQ youth on Oct. 1, according to a preliminary budget document obtained by the Washington Post.

Introduced during the Biden-Harris administration in 2022, the hotline connects callers with counselors who are trained to work with this population, who are four times likelier to attempt suicide than their cisgender or heterosexual counterparts.

ā€œSuicide prevention is about risk, not identity,” said Jaymes Black, CEO of the Trevor Project, which provides emergency crisis support for LGBTQ youth and has contracted with HHS to take calls routed through 988.

“Ending the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ youth specialized services will not just strip away access from millions of LGBTQ+ kids and teens — it will put their lives at risk,ā€ they said in a statement. ā€œThese programs were implemented to address a proven, unprecedented, and ongoing mental health crisis among our nation’s young people with strong bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Trump himself.ā€

“I want to be clear to all LGBTQ+ young people: This news, while upsetting, is not final,” Black said. “And regardless of federal funding shifts, the Trevor Project remains available 24/7 for anyone who needs us, just as we always have.ā€

The service for LGBTQ youth has received 1.3 million calls, texts, or chats since its debut, with an average of 2,100 contacts per day in February.

ā€œI worry deeply that we will see more LGBTQ young people reach a crisis state and not have anyone there to help them through that,ā€ said Janson Wu, director of advocacy and government affairs at the Trevor Project. ā€œI worry that LGBTQ young people will reach out to 988 and not receive a compassionate and welcoming voice on the other end — and that will only deepen their crisis.ā€

Under Trump’s HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the agency’s departments and divisions have experienced drastic cuts, with a planned reduction in force of 20,000 full-time employees. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has been sunset and mental health services consolidated into the newly formed Administration for a Healthy America.

The budget document reveals, per Mother Jones, “further sweeping cuts to HHS, including a 40 percent budget cut to the National Institutes of Health; elimination of funding for Head Start, the early childhood education program for low-income families; and a 44 percent funding cut to the Centers for Disease Control, including all the agency’s chronic disease programs.”

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court hears oral arguments in LGBTQ education case

Mahmoud v. Taylor plaintiffs argue for right to opt-out of LGBTQ inclusive lessons

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case about whether Montgomery County, Md., public schools violated the First Amendment rights of parents by not providing them an opportunity to opt their children out of reading storybooks that were part of an LGBTQ-inclusive literacy curriculum.

The school district voted in early 2022 to allow books featuring LGBTQ characters in elementary school language arts classes. When the county announced that parents would not be able to excuse their kids from these lessons, they sued on the grounds that their freedom to exercise the teachings of their Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths had been infringed.

The lower federal courts declined to compel the district to temporarily provide advance notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the LGBTQ inclusive curricula, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the parents had not shown that exposure to the storybooks compelled them to violate their religion.

ā€œLGBTQ+ stories matter,” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement Tuesday. ā€œThey matter so students can see themselves and their families in the books they read — so they can know they’re not alone. And they matter for all students who need to learn about the world around them and understand that while we may all be different, we all deserve to be valued and loved.”

She added, “All students lose when we limit what they can learn, what they can read, and what their teachers can say. The Supreme Court should reject this attempt to silence our educators and ban our stories.ā€

GLAD Law, NCLR, Family Equality, and COLAGE submitted a 40-page amicus brief on April 9, which argued the storybooks “fit squarely” within the district’s language arts curriculum, the petitioners challenging the materials incorrectly characterized them as “specialized curriculum,” and that their request for a “mandated notice-and-opt-out requirement” threatens “to sweep far more broadly.”

Lambda Legal, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, PFLAG, and the National Women’s Law Center announced their submission of a 31-page amicus brief in a press release on April 11.

ā€œAll students benefit from a school climate that promotes acceptance and respect,ā€ said Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal.  ā€œEnsuring that students can see themselves in the curriculum and learn about students who are different is critical for creating a positive school environment. This is particularly crucial for LGBTQ+ students and students with LGBTQ+ family members who already face unique challenges.ā€

The organizations’ brief cited extensive social science research pointing to the benefits of LGBTQ-inclusive instruction like “age-appropriate storybooks featuring diverse families and identities” benefits all students regardless of their identities.

Also weighing in with amici briefs on behalf of Montgomery County Public Schools were the National Education Association, the ACLU, and the American Psychological Association.

Those writing in support of the parents challenging the district’s policy included the Center for American Liberty, the Manhattan Institute, Parents Defending Education, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Trump-Vance administration’s U.S. Department of Justice, and a coalition of Republican members of Congress.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular