Connect with us

National

Political shock in Mass. as Brown claims Kennedy’s seat

Published

on

Republican Scott Brown secured a victory Tuesday in the Massachusetts special election, leaving many LGBT activists stunned and angry over the loss of the filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate and wondering whether the LGBT agenda can advance in Congress.

Brown, a state senator, won his bid to capture the seat previously held by the late Edward Kennedy after taking 52 percent of the vote, according to the Associated Press. Turnout was high; more people reportedly voted in Massachusetts on Tuesday than in any non-presidential general election in the state since 1990.

Many in the LGBT community were disappointed by Brown’s victory because he has a history of opposition to same-sex marriage and hasn’t expressed an interest in fighting for LGBT causes in Congress. In 2007, he voted for a failed state constitutional amendment that would have ended same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

By comparison, Democratic contender Martha Coakley, as the state’s attorney general, last year filed a lawsuit on behalf on the State of Massachusetts against the Defense of Marriage Act, citing that 16,000 married couples in the state are denied federal benefits because of the law.

Dee Dee Edmundson, political director for MassEquality, said Brown’s win was “a call to action” for LGBT people to become more politically involved.

“This is a rallying cry that we need to step up our efforts; we can’t be apathetic anymore,” she said. “If the haters are going to win in Massachusetts, they can win anywhere, and [LGBT civil rights supporters] have a lot of work to do for the 2010 election.”

Brad Reichard, a gay D.C. resident who volunteered for the Coakley campaign, said the candidate’s loss was “clearly disappointment,” but urged for a greater effort from the LGBT community in moving forward.

“I think Sen. [John] Kerry said it best: This isn’t about a circular firing squad, this is about looking forward and moving forward,” Reichard said.

Coakley had a double-digit lead on Brown as recently as last month, but the Republican candidate played up his image as a populist candidate during the campaign and surged ahead in the last couple weeks to win.

Edmundson said a number of factors played into Coakley’s loss, such as the lack of interest until the final weeks of the campaign from national groups, including the Democratic National Committee. Edmundson also noted Massachusetts’ historical resistance to electing female candidates and noted that the state has never elected women to the offices of governor or U.S. senator.

“The electorate doesn’t like strong, powerful women,” Edmundson said. “You have a guy with a beer and truck versus a prosecutor who has done her best for justice in the world. The guy with the beer is probably going to win three out of four times.”

Edmundson expressed skepticism about Brown’s commitment to fight for LGBT residents of Massachusetts while in office.

“He’s already come out against [repealing] DOMA, against [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], against repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” she said. “He’s not going to be representative of the electorate in Massachusetts.”

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples, strongly supported Brown during the final week of the campaign.

Over the weekend, the organization reportedly arranged for robocalls to Massachusetts residents, asking voters if they oppose same-sex marriage, and if so, to vote for Brown in the election.

In an e-mail blast Monday, NOM said Brown’s vote in the U.S. Senate would help derail efforts to overturn DOMA.

“His election would help protect DOMA and send a resounding message to the pro-same-sex marriage leadership in Washington,” says the e-mail. “And if a Republican can win in Massachusetts … how many red-state Democrats would be willing to put their seats on the line by voting to repeal DOMA in an election year?”

But Edmundson said Coakley’s loss wasn’t a referendum on same-sex marriage, noting marriage rights for gay couples have been available in the state since 2003.

“Her support of same-sex marriage wasn’t a huge factor,” Edmundson said. “I don’t think it was a referendum on marriage at all. … I think it was a referendum on health care, I think it was a referendum on the state of the economy and the likability of the candidates.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

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

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular