National
In Congress: Many bills, but no timetable for progress
Pro-LGBT legislation stalls as November elections loom
Congress could be poised to pass several pro-LGBT bills in the months that remain in this year’s legislative calendar, although Capitol Hill observers say the schedule for when the bills would see votes remains unclear.
In the wake of successful votes late last month to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Congress could see momentum to pass other major legislation, such as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said in an interview with the Blade this week that she had renewed optimism about the domestic partner benefits bill, which she sponsors in the House.
“One issue that got renewed momentum over this Memorial Day recess was my bill to provide domestic partnership and obligations to federal employees and their partners,” she said.
Baldwin, the only out lesbian in Congress, said the issue received additional attention last week when President Obama enacted limited partner benefits for federal employees through administrative action.
“At the same time as he signed this presidential memorandum, he called on the Congress to send [my bill] to his desk because he can’t provide some of these very important benefits like health insurance and certain pension benefits without our passing legislation,” Baldwin said.
In a statement commending Obama for issuing the benefits, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also spoke favorably about the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act as one way to offer additional benefits to federal workers.
“Congresswoman Baldwin’s bill will continue to move forward in the House and we look forward to its progress in the Senate,” Pelosi said.
The domestic partner bill had significant momentum late last year when House and Senate committees reported it to the floor in each chamber. For a time, the legislation had stalled due to cost offset questions, but congressional leaders have said they’ve since received the necessary information.
Baldwin said staffers of the House and Senate leaders on the legislation met Monday to discuss the bill’s path, and lawmakers in both chambers are ready to move forward.
In a statement to the Blade, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said the bill would be ready for floor consideration “within weeks.” Lieberman noted this estimate was for when the bill would be ready to go to the floor, not when a vote would occur, and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is “responsible for setting a timetable for consideration of legislation.”
Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said a vote hasn’t yet been scheduled.
Baldwin said she couldn’t offer a more specific timetable for when she expects the legislation to advance.
“A lot happened over the course of this recess in terms of adding momentum for the legislation,” she said. “Because it happened over the recess, and I’ve been in Wisconsin, and not in Washington, and not able to have conversations with my leadership and with the other players in this, I can’t tell you if there’s a timetable yet.”
Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, also said she doesn’t know when Congress would bring the measure to the floor for consideration.
“Again, the question is how to move forward and what’s the timeframe for moving it forward, so we continue, as we have been for the past year, advocating to get this bill done,” she said.
ENDA faces obstacles
LGBT rights supporters have also strongly pushed for Congress to take up ENDA, which would bar employment discrimination against LGBT people in most public and private workplace settings.
The legislation remains pending in House and Senate committees. Capitol Hill observers have said ENDA supporters lack the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.
Still, supporters have expressed optimism about moving forward with the bill in the House. Baldwin said the LGBT Equality Caucus has been “counting the votes” and asking lawmakers how they would vote on the legislation or a harmful motion to recommit on the measure.
“It’s looking strong,” Baldwin said. “I’m hopeful that we can see committee consideration and floor passage very shortly.”
Rep. Barney Frank, who’s sponsoring the bill in the House, has told media outlets that a vote could take place this month or next.
But a more specific time for when Congress might take up ENDA is unclear. Aaron Albright, a spokesperson for the Education & Labor Committee, said he didn’t have an update or estimate on the schedule for committee action on the legislation.
Baldwin said her “crystal ball has been very unclear” for ENDA consideration and that she couldn’t offer a more definite timeframe.
“I was hoping it would be some months ago, but we continue to go through the vote counts, try to make sure they’re as solid as possible,” she said.
Herwitt was similarly unsure about when ENDA would come to the House floor, although she said HRC was pushing for it to come before lawmakers.
“Obviously, HRC wants a committee markup and a floor vote as soon as possible,” she said. “We would like to continue the momentum on moving LGBT equality forward and we would like a House vote as soon as possible.”
One danger for ENDA in the House is a legislative maneuver known as the motion to recommit, which could derail the legislation once it comes to the floor. A successful vote on the maneuver on the floor would enable opponents to send the motion back to committee.
Supporters have said opponents could target the bill’s gender identity provisions in the motion to recommit, although what’s targeted wouldn’t necessarily be such language.
Baldwin said “there are a lot of meddlesome things” that ENDA’s opponents can do through a motion to recommit when the bill comes to the floor.
“So we have been really trying to ask colleagues how they would vote in a wide variety of scenarios, so that we can feel confident that we have the votes to defeat such a motion to recommit,” she said.
Herwitt noted there’s “still some concern” and “vote counting” happening around the motion to recommit.
“We remain concerned to the extent that we want to continue working with leadership to shore up the votes that we need, so that when the bill comes to the floor, we have the ability to beat back a motion to recommit,” Herwitt said.
Herwitt said Pelosi has expressed a commitment to move ENDA to the floor, but wants to “make sure that we’re looking at angles in terms of what the motion to recommit would be, to protect the integrity of the bill.”
“If she brings the bill to the floor, she doesn’t want to lose,” Herwitt said. “So, she’s an expert vote-counter. She was a whip for many years, and so she knows what it takes to get a bill to the floor. From everything I’ve heard from her people, she wants to get it done, but she wants to get it done right.”
Another pro-LGBT bill pending before Congress is legislation that would enable same-sex bi-national couples to remain together in the U.S.
Current immigration law prohibits LGBT Americans from sponsoring their foreign partners for residency in the United States. Consequently, some LGBT Americans are faced with losing their partners after visas expire, while others expatriate with their partners to other countries with more favorable immigration laws.
Standalone legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act would rectify this situation. But supporters of the measure see its inclusion as part of upcoming immigration reform as the optimal path for passage.
Heading the legislative effort for comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate is Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). His office didn’t respond to a request to comment on the timing for immigration reform or whether UAFA would be included in the legislation.
Still, Schumer has spoken favorably about the inclusion of UAFA in comprehensive immigration reform, and advocates are expecting him to include the provision in the bill once it’s introduced.
According to the news website IrishCentral.com, Schumer said last week at a fundraising event for Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform that he thinks Congress will finish immigration reform by March 2011 — if not by the end of this year.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said supporters of the legislation have been assured Schumer wants UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
“I would even say, at this point, that the expectation is that UAFA will be part of comprehensive reform,” Ralls said. “I think Immigration Equality and other immigrant advocates fully expect it to be an inclusive bill when it’s introduced.”
Still, when Schumer will introduce the legislation in the Senate remains unclear. Since the Senate Judiciary Committee would handle both immigration reform and U.S. Supreme Court nominations, many Capitol Hill observers believe the Senate will first approve the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court before taking up the immigration issue.
If Schumer includes UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform, the larger bill could find opposition from conservative groups that say they won’t support immigration reform with language benefitting same-sex couples.
Last week, the Liberty Counsel issued a statement signed by other Christian evangelical leaders saying comprehensive immigration reform that includes UAFA would not advance in Congress.
“Same-sex domestic partnerships will doom any effort for bipartisan support of immigration and will cause religious conservatives to withdraw their support,” said Mat Staver, founder and chair of the Liberty Counsel. “If same-sex domestic partnerships are included, the immigration bill will have no chance of passing.”
In response, Ralls said the “cornerstone” of the U.S. immigration system has been family unification and that LGBT families “should be part of that noble commitment.”
“Despite the protests of a few, many people, including many faith communities, continue to support an inclusive immigration reform bill,” Ralls said. “Methodists, Episcopalians, Jewish organizations, Unitarians and others are holding strong to a belief that a truly pro-family bill must include every family.”
Other bills on deck
Other pro-LGBT bills also could come up for consideration by the end of this year.
One bill, known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act, would bar schools from discriminating against LGBT students or ignoring harassing behavior against them. Potential penalties for discrimination could include a loss of federal funding or a legal cause of action for victims.
As standalone versions of the legislation remain pending in the House and Senate, supporters have said they envision passage of the bill as part of the upcoming Elementary & Secondary Education Act reauthorization.
Still, it’s unclear when Congress will take up this major education budget legislation. A House Democratic leadership aide noted the bill hadn’t yet been introduced, and “we can’t determine the timeline until that happens.”
Should Congress begin work on the education bill, Herwitt said HRC would push for the Student Non-Discrimination Act’s inclusion as part of the larger legislation.
“If the ESEA bill moves forward, you will see HRC and other groups like [the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network] working hard on the bill to make every effort to have it be part of the reauthorization bill,” Herwitt said.
Herwitt said she’s heard conflicting stories on the education reauthorization, though, and was unsure time remains in this year’s legislative calendar to tackle the legislation.
Baldwin said the Student Non-Discrimination Act’s “brightest prospect” is inclusion as part of this larger legislation, but she noted if the process stalls, congressional hearings would help educate members of Congress on the importance of the issue.
“One of the things I would really hope for is hearings on that legislation to really educate members and the public on what a significant issue this is,” she said. “I think many are unaware, and I think you could build some real momentum for passage of the legislation if it were highlighted in that way.”
Also of interest to LGBT rights supporters is passage of the fiscal years 2010 and 2011 foreign affairs reauthorization legislation.
Last year, the House approved a version of the State Department budget legislation that would call for greater U.S. action against LGBT abuses abroad. In the Senate, legislation with identical language has been reported out of committee, but hasn’t yet reached the floor.
The language urges the State Department to task more officers in the Human Rights Bureau to track violence overseas related to sexual orientation and laws criminalizing homosexuality.
Additionally, the provision calls on U.S. embassies to work to reform or repeal laws overseas criminalizing homosexuality and directs the State Department to strengthen its annual human rights report with regard to reporting on abuses against LGBT people.
But whether Congress will manage to pass the reauthorization bill for the State Department remains in question. The last time this legislation made its way to president’s desk was in 2002, and Manley said nothing has been scheduled for when the bill would come to the Senate floor.
Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, was skeptical that the full Senate would find time soon to take up the measure.
“I haven’t heard anything about them being able to find floor time for it,” he said. “It doesn’t seem like there’s any momentum in terms of getting it to the floor in the short term.”
Herwitt noted that passage of foreign affairs authorization has often been a difficult task for Congress.
“There have been many years when the State Department authorization bill never made it to the floor just because it becomes a heavy legislative lift — not because of our issues, but because of the bigger issues that are in the bill,” she said.
Baldwin said she was nonetheless optimistic about the bill’s chances this year because both chambers of Congress have moved forward on it.
“I would be hopeful — given that there’s interest now in both houses of Congress — that we can see it through,” she said.
Commentary
When a church fears the rainbow
Puerto Rico pastor objected to Pride symbols outside congregation
There are moments when an incident stops being merely a local story and begins to reveal something much deeper. What happened on June 28 outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico, belongs in that category.
I do not know who painted the rainbow colors on the asphalt and on a roadside guardrail. I do not know what motivated them, and it is not my place to justify their actions. If someone believes a law was broken, there are authorities and legal mechanisms to address that. That is not the point of this reflection.
The point is the words that followed.
Hours after those colors appeared, Pastor Jorge J. Santiago Reyes went live on social media. He said he felt threatened. He described what happened as a physical attack against his church. He appeared angry and disappointed. He called those who painted the rainbow “cowards” and “charlatans.” He expressed frustration with the support that, according to him, the municipal government of Comerío has shown toward the LGBTQ community, and with those who support posts related to that community. He repeated several times that the people responsible had “crossed the line.” He ended his message by saying, “These charlatans have to be stopped.”
As I listened to his words, I stopped thinking about the paint.
I began thinking about fear.
There is one phrase the pastor repeated again and again: “They crossed the line.” Yet he never explained what that line was. If he was referring to a possible violation of the law, that is for the authorities to determine. If he meant respect for property, there are also procedures to deal with that. But when that line remains undefined and the message begins to associate a rainbow with a threat, the question changes. It is no longer only about a guardrail or a road. It becomes a question about what boundary, in the pastor’s view, was actually crossed.
Paint can be erased.
A brush can cover the asphalt and return a guardrail to its original color.
What does not disappear so easily is the meaning of those colors.
And perhaps that is where the real conflict begins.
It is significant that this happened precisely on June 28, the day when the LGBTQ community remembers a history marked by exclusion, violence, and the struggle for dignity. What represents memory, hope, and the possibility of living without hiding for millions of people was presented by others as a threat.
I do not know why someone painted that rainbow. I do not need to know in order to ask whether those were the words society should expect from a pastor.
A religious leader may feel hurt, frustrated, or angry. What he cannot forget is the responsibility that comes with every public expression. His words do not end when a livestream ends. They move beyond the space of his church, reach people who may never share his faith, and help shape the way others see those who think differently. When a pastor calls other people “charlatans” and “cowards,” says they “have to be stopped,” and turns a rainbow into evidence of an attack, he is no longer speaking only from frustration. He begins to build a discourse that can feed rejection toward a community far larger than the people responsible for that act.
There was another moment in the livestream that caught my attention. The pastor reminded viewers how much he has served Comerío, how much he has accompanied his community, and how much he has worked for it. I have no reason to question that service. I am sure many people can testify to the good he has done.
That is precisely why it was difficult to hear.
Pastoral vocation is not about reminding a town of everything one has done for it when conflict appears. Service does not lose its value when it goes unrecognized; it loses something when it becomes an argument to claim a moral position from which to speak down to others. A person who serves does so because that is the nature of the calling, not because that service grants authority to discredit those who think differently.
As a pastor, that part of the message left me deeply uneasy. Not because I expect ministers of God to be perfect. We are not. But because our words carry weight, we are called to speak with greater responsibility. Some expressions build bridges. Others raise walls. Some words invite encounter. Others end up justifying rejection.
The paint will disappear. A brush will be enough to cover the asphalt and return the guardrail to its original color.
The words will not disappear as easily.
They will remain recorded in a video, shared again and again on social media, and remembered by those who heard them. They will remain long after the last trace of paint has been erased.
When this episode is remembered, it probably will not be because of the rainbow that appeared outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico.
It will be because of the words a pastor chose to use when speaking about it.
And that difference changes everything.
National
ACLU says trans athletes ruling is narrower than many believe
‘Narrow decision focused on the unique context of sports’
The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to uphold state laws barring transgender girls from competing on girls’ school sports teams represents a setback for transgender rights, but attorneys who argued the case say the ruling is considerably narrower than many initial reactions suggested.
Shortly after the decision was released, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union — which represented the plaintiffs in the case — held a press call to explain what they described as the limited scope of the Court’s opinion. While the ruling allows states to exclude transgender girls from girls’ school sports teams, they said it stops well short of creating a nationwide ban or dismantling broader legal protections for transgender people.
Joshua Block, senior counsel with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, said the majority intentionally confined its analysis to school athletics.
“[The majority] issued a narrow decision focused specifically on the unique context of sports. It didn’t issue a broader decision saying that Title IX in general didn’t protect transgender students. It didn’t say that other states couldn’t make a different policy choice and allow transgender girls to participate with cisgender girls, and it didn’t issue a sweeping ruling saying that under the Constitution it’s perfectly fine to discriminate based on transgender status.”
Block said one of the opinion’s most significant takeaways is that it leaves decisions about transgender participation in school sports largely in the hands of states.
“It leaves the rest of the legal rights of transgender people where the court found them.”
He stressed that the ruling authorizes states to adopt restrictions but does not require them to do so.
“It’s very important to emphasize that this isn’t a national mandate to ban trans athletes everywhere. It’s a fight that’s going to continue state by state, school by school … it really says that a state may discriminate, not that they must discriminate. States, schools, and athletic associations should be taking every step to ensure that athletic opportunities exist for transgender girls.”
Beyond athletics, Block said the opinion’s most important legal consequence may lie in its treatment of the Equal Protection Clause.
“What the court said is that even applying that heightened standard, we’re going to establish what’s effectively a new rule of the Equal Protection Clause, saying that you can’t bring this sort of as-applied challenge to a law that is valid for most people.”
Even so, he argued that the Court repeatedly framed transgender participation in sports as a policy issue for state governments rather than a constitutional mandate.
“Over and over and over again it talks about how states may exclude transgender girls, not that they must, and over and over and over again it says that this is a policy question that should be decided by the people in their different communities and their representatives.”
Block also rejected the idea that the ruling endorses the Trump administration’s broader efforts to restrict transgender rights.
“I have no doubt that the Trump administration will try to declare victory and say that this decision supports the lawless policies they’re pursuing, but I think anyone reading the decision can see otherwise.”
The White House nonetheless celebrated the decision, calling it a victory that would “protect women and girls.”
“The Court’s decision is a landmark victory for common sense, biological reality, and for the millions of women and girls who deserve a level playing field. By upholding laws protecting female athletic competition, the Court confirmed that states may preserve the fairness, safety, and equal opportunities that Title IX was enacted to guarantee.”
Medical researchers and LGBTQ advocates dispute the administration’s characterization of the evidence. A 2021 study published in the Journal of Sports Medicine found no scientific evidence for supporting these laws that categorically ban transgender women from participating in women’s sports.
Critics have also argued that enforcement of such laws could create new risks for athletes. Researchers have warned that sex-verification requirements may expose students to invasive examinations and discrimination.
A 2016 USA Today investigation found that at least 368 young gymnasts reported experiencing sexual abuse over a 20-year period. More than 100 coaches and gymnastics officials were accused of abuse, yet USA Gymnastics failed to track predatory coaches, allowing many to continue working with children. LGBTQ advocates argue that requiring athletes to undergo genital inspections or other forms of sex verification could place young athletes at even greater risk.
Advocacy organizations said the decision, while limited legally, will have significant real-world consequences for transgender youth.
Chris Mosier, a transgender athlete and board member of Point of Pride, said the ruling extends beyond sports.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today isn’t driven by fairness or dignity in sports. It’s an attack on our community’s right to live freely and authentically in every part of our lives. Young people, regardless of whether they’re cis or trans, deserve the joy of sports: to build friendships, to move their bodies and have fun on the field. To every trans athlete out there: you have a community standing behind you. No politician or law can take away your joy or power. We will get through this as our community has always done: together.”
Brian K. Bond, CEO of PFLAG National, emphasized that states remain free to adopt inclusive policies despite the Court’s decision.
“The Court rules best when it listens to the needs of marginalized people: trans people belong, on and off the field. While we celebrate the Court’s decision to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment and affirm that every person born in the United States is a citizen, the Court today added an asterisk to allow discrimination against transgender student athletes. Our country has been here before, and frankly, you would think this Court would have learned.”
“For PFLAG families, today’s decision in BPJ means that transgender athletes can continue to be affirmed for who they are in places where the law allows – and invigorates our LGBTQ+ and allied community to expand those protections. The parents, families, allies and LGBTQ+ people of PFLAG will continue to advocate for our trans loved ones to have the freedom to be themselves, everywhere. Trans people belong, and deserve to have access to the benefits of sport like everyone else.”
Allen Morris, policy director at the National LGBTQ Task Force, called the decision “devastating” but noted that it does not establish a nationwide sports ban.
“Today’s decision is devastating and the impact to clear. While this is not a nationwide ban on transgender participation in sports, the Court has given states a legal pathway to attempt to discriminate against trans individuals from full participation in school sports and all aspects of life.”
“This ruling is not just about sports: it’s about valuing and protecting the safety, security and constitutional rights of transgender people. By allowing states to draw a categorical line based on “biological sex,” the majority has chosen deference to exclusion and political beliefs over transgender students’ lived realities. There is already a dangerous rise in state-based violence growing across the country, and we’re overcoming this issue at each turn.”
Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, CEO of GLSEN, said the decision sends a broader message about transgender students’ place in schools.
“We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of this decision. This ruling represents another significant setback for transgender youth across the country, limiting their ability to fully engage in school life. Exclusion from these spaces shapes not only athletic access, but the broader message about who should be valued and included in our schools and societal ecosystem.”
“School sports are much more than competition. They are about belonging, forming a community, and the opportunity to grow and thrive alongside peers. Preventing youth from taking part in everyday activities undermines these fundamental values. We continue to see efforts to regulate discrimination under the guise of fairness, despite the lack of evidence that inclusive policies harm women’s sports. Access to these experiences is critical to students’ well-being and development.”
Massachusetts
EXCLUSIVE: Pressley rips State Department over LGBTQ rights rollbacks abroad
Massachusetts Democrat sent letter to Marco Rubio on Tuesday
Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the Trump-Vance administration to take urgent action to defend LGBTQ people across the globe, including in countries that are violating international human rights protections for LGBTQ individuals, putting at risk the safety of civilians and U.S. citizens working, living, and traveling abroad.
The letter, which the Washington Blade got an exclusive preview of prior to its sending, criticizes the Trump-Vance administration’s foreign policy direction at the State Department, arguing that it has moved to roll back LGBTQ protections that have long been part of the U.S.’s global human rights posture.
“Criminalizing LGBTQI+ individuals undermines democracy globally, as well as U.S. national security. Thus, we urge the State Department to take adequate measures to speak out against this criminalization and protect U.S. citizens abroad, including your staff, who may be detained or harmed under such laws, policies, and practices,” Pressley, a Democrat who represents roughly three-fourths of Boston and much of the city’s suburbs, said. “U.S. civilians, diplomatic personnel, military members, and nonprofit workers on the ground providing health care and disaster support will be affected and have their safety threatened if the U.S. does not take action. Even U.S. citizens perceived as being part of the LGBTQI+ community and traveling or living in those countries may be used as bargaining chips. This is a serious U.S. national security concern.”
In the letter, Pressley underscores what she describes as a global escalation in criminalization and violence against LGBTQ people, noting that one-third of countries still criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relationships and that 12 countries impose the death penalty. She argues that these conditions make LGBTQ travelers, diplomats, and aid workers particularly vulnerable, and calls on the State Department to reassert U.S. leadership in defending human rights abroad.
“Every person deserves to live authentically, yet several countries are violating international human rights laws that protect LGBTQI+ individuals,” she said. “One-third of countries around the world criminalize same-sex consensual acts between adults, and 12 countries allow LGBTQI+ people to be executed for being themselves.”
She also invokes the role the U.S. has played in promoting democratic values internationally, arguing that LGBTQ rights should remain central to that mission.
“Historically, the United States has played a critical diplomatic role in promoting democracy and freedom for all individuals, including LGBTQI+ persons. The U.S. should be a world leader promoting human rights domestically and globally.”
In a separate statement included in the letter, Pressley emphasized both the moral and national security implications of the issue, warning that anti-LGBTQ laws abroad are endangering lives and require a coordinated U.S. response.
“Every person deserves to show up as their true, authentic selves here in the United States and in countries across the globe — and that includes our LGBTQI+ community members,” she said.
“However, we are witnessing a deeply concerning rise in human rights violations and criminalization of LGBTQI+ individuals in other countries, endangering the lives of civilians and U.S. citizens. It is incumbent upon the United States to protect our LGBTQI+ siblings at home and abroad not only for our national security but for the safety and freedom of LGBTQI+ people everywhere.”
The letter goes on to press the State Department for concrete action, including a public reaffirmation of U.S. commitments to LGBTQ human rights, the restoration of LGBTQ analysis in annual country reports, and clearer guidance for Americans traveling abroad. It also seeks clarity on whether the department is tracking cases of U.S. citizens detained or harmed under anti-LGBTQ laws and what proactive steps are being taken to warn and protect LGBTQ travelers.
While she is not a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Pressley remains highly active in international affairs and global policy.
While the letter focuses on current policy, it also lands in the broader context of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s long anti-LGBTQ record. Rubio, a former senator from Florida, has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, calling the federal Respect for Marriage Act, which he voted against, a “stupid waste of time.” He has also expressed support for efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
During his time in the U.S. Senate and as a Florida political leader, Rubio has a long anti-LGBTQ track record. He defended state policies that LGBTQ advocates say target queer and transgender people, including Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law — commonly known by critics as “Don’t Say Gay” or “Don’t Say Trans” — which restricts classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.
He has also drawn criticism for his voting record, including a 0/100 score from the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard, reflecting opposition to expanding federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ people and for opposing adoption rights for same-sex couples.
Now serving as secretary of state, Rubio has overseen changes at the State Department that LGBTQ advocates say have reduced visibility and protections for transgender people, including the removal of trans-specific references from parts of the department’s public-facing materials and travel guidance. He has also been linked to broader restructuring efforts involving U.S. foreign assistance programs, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has historically supported global HIV prevention and LGBTQ rights initiatives in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America.
Those cuts and shifts, critics argue, have weakened programs like PEPFAR — credited with saving millions of lives worldwide — and reduced U.S. support for LGBTQ communities facing persecution abroad. The program is credited with saving at least 25 million lives.
Pressley’s own record stands in contrast, with a 100/100 on HRC’s Congressional Scorecard and a long history of legislative and advocacy work centered on LGBTQ equality. In recent years, she has secured federal funding for The Pryde, an affordable housing development for LGBTQ seniors in Boston, and has repeatedly pushed for expanded civil rights protections, including support for the Equality Act and the Equal Rights Amendment.
She has also advanced policy efforts aimed at LGBTQ survivors of violence, trans, and nonbinary individuals navigating credit and legal systems, and broader protections under housing and civil rights law — framing her work as part of a sustained effort to ensure LGBTQ people are included in federal policy at every level.
Turkish authorities refuse to allow gay cruise to dock in country
PHOTOS: Crush Dance Bar
In Trump’s divided America, Michael Weinstein’s AHF responds
When a church fears the rainbow
Under-the-radar Delaware beach towns smart buyers are targeting
Queen Camilla meets with JK Rowling
SMYAL receives $25,000 award for ‘courageous acts’
‘Transcendent’ a tough but important read
Under-the-radar Delaware beach towns smart buyers are targeting
