Connect with us

National

Will time run out for ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal?

New optimism as Reid commits to vote, but hearings loom

Published

on

Aubrey Sarvis (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal continue to fret about having enough time to pass a measure to overturn the military’s gay ban before year’s end even as Senate leadership has committed to a vote on the issue during the lame duck session of Congress.

An announcement last week from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would bring major defense legislation with repeal language to a vote bolstered the confidence of supporters as they acknowledge significant hurdles remain in reaching the finish line.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he’s “hopeful” that Congress will be able to enact repeal, but acknowledged that “the clock is our enemy.”

“I’m fearful of time running out on the bill before it’s finished or the prospects of strong opposition from a core group of senators who don’t want to see anything happen in the lame duck,” Sarvis said.

Debate on the defense authorization bill traditionally takes about two weeks in the Senate. Given that slightly more than one month remains in the legislative session this year, time for a debate and vote in the Senate ā€” as well as time for conferencing the legislation ā€” would have to be compressed to move forward.

“Normally, that would involve several weeks or months,” Sarvis said. “For us to succeed here, all those elements, debate on the floor, conference, votes in the two chambers on the conference report would have to be compressed to about eight or 10 days on the floor, in conference and back to the two chambers. That’s part of the challenge.”

Sarvis said he expects the defense authorization bill would likely come to the floor after the Senate Armed Services Committee holds hearings on the Pentagon “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” report. Levin has said he wants to hear testimony early in December.

“If the hearing is [Dec.] 2, I could see a scenario where the leader might make the motion on Friday the third, or, if the hearing is the sixth, then maybe the next day,” Sarvis said.

One major question is whether enough senators will vote in the affirmative to reach the 60-vote threshold to move forward with debate on the legislation. In September, a previous attempt to move forward with the measure failed by a vote of 56-43.

A senior Democratic aide, who spoke to the Washington Blade on condition of anonymity, expressed confidence about being able to move forward with the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.

“I think that we may be close to having 60 votes to begin debate on the bill,” the aide said. “I’ve seen some positive signs from unexpected Republicans in recent days.”

Sarvis said the ability to move forward will depend on whether at least a handful of Republicans are willing to break ranks with their caucus.

“If you just look at Democrats, the numbers don’t add up to 60,” Sarvis said. “I don’t care how you slice it. So, if we can persuade a handful of Republicans, and I think we can, we will hit 60.”

A number of senators who are seen as key to moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal have said they want to see an open amendment process in place.

In September, when Senate leadership made an earlier attempt to bring the legislation to the floor, a number of senators said they were voting “no” because they didn’t feel the Republicans could offer a sufficient number of amendments to the legislation.

Last week, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of repeal language in the Senate, expressed confidence during a news conference about having at least 60 votes to move forward ā€” provided certain conditions are met with the amendment process on the Senate floor.

ā€œI am confident that we have more than 60 votes prepared to take up the defense authorization bill with the repeal of ā€˜Donā€™t Ask, Donā€™t Tellā€™ if only there will be a guarantee of a fair and open amendment process,ā€ Lieberman said.

Lieberman said heā€™s received assurances from Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) ā€” as well as ā€œothers privatelyā€ ā€” that they would vote for moving forward with the defense authorization bill if a more open amendment process is in place.

The amendment process these senators are seeking remains somewhat nebulous. What standard for the process are these fence-sitting seeking to win their support for moving forward?

Asked about this during the news conference, Lieberman said the exact terms are up for negotiation.

ā€œItā€™s hard to put a number on it now,ā€ Lieberman said. ā€œThatā€™s what I hope is going to be negotiated. Of course, weā€™ll do our best to encourage Sen. Reid to reach out to allow a somewhat larger number.ā€

Some Democrats speculate the call for a change in the amendment process could be an excuse for some fence-sitting senators to vote “no” on moving forward with the defense authorization bill.

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said the senator has “always been committed to having a fair debate and votes” on the defense authorization bill and specifically on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provision.

“We are prepared to proceed in a way that would allow Senators on both sides to voice their concerns and to offer relevant amendments to the bill,” Manley said.

Manley said critics of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are spinning “a myth” that Reid “is somehow trying to bypass debate on this critical issue.”

The Democratic aide said this call for a more open amendment process could enable some senators to vote against moving toward final passage of the bill after the legislation comes to the floor.

“You could have … some Republicans using process arguments to say, “No, we haven’t had enough debate time and I cannot support moving toward final passage of the bill yet,'” the aide said. “The Republicans might just try to run out the clock.”

The aide said a fair amendment process in the Senate has “never, ever meant” that debate can continue “as long as anybody wants to continue the debate, as long as there are amendments to be talked about and voted on.”

Sarvis noted that unlike in September, Reid has said the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill, wouldn’t be offered as an amendment to the defense authorization the next time around and would instead come to the floor as standalone legislation.

“By doing so, he has shown his good faith in proceeding toward a fair and open manner in which senators on both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to offer amendments,” Sarvis said.

Sarvis also said Reid’s commitment to allow amendments on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and abortion-related provisions in the defense authorization bill was evidence of the majority leader’s commitment to fairness during debate on the legislation.

It’s possible that in exchange for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Senate leadership will have to agree to a vote on amendments that would rile the White House, such as a measure related to the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or an amendment to try terrorist suspects by military commission.

Sarvis said he doesn’t “think it’s any secret” that Republicans may be looking at amendments like that.

“Are there some Republicans who would like to put the administration on the hot seat with respect to some amendments?” Sarvis said. “Perhaps. But my hope would be that when the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ provisions are debated on the floor that amendments [in that nature] would not be in the mix or part of that debate.”

The Democratic aide said deals are often cut at late stages in the game, but he doesn’t think opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the Senate would allow moving forward with ending the law even with an agreement to have a vote on those issues.

“My sense is that [Sen. John] McCain and [Sen. Lindsey] Graham and their crew are dead set on stopping the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” the aide said. ‘I don’t think that they’re willing to deal that away.”

As these questions linger, eyes will be on several key senators to determine whether the chamber can reach the 60-vote threshold needed to move forward when the legislation comes before the Senate again.

The offices of both senators Lieberman mentioned as “yes” votes under a different amendment process ā€” Collins and Lugar ā€” said they would be open to moving forward with the defense authorization bill if certain conditions are met.

Mark Helmke, a Lugar spokesperson, said the senator hasn’t taken a position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and is waiting for the Pentagon report on the issue, which is now set for release on Nov. 30.

“He is in favor of having a full debate on the matter as part of the defense authorization bill if there is a consent agreement for timed debate and votes on a number of issues,” Helmke added.

Kevin Kelley, a Collins spokesperson, confirmed the Maine senator was concerned about what she perceived as the lack of an open process the last time the legislation was brought up for a vote.

“In September, she was disappointed that the Democratic majority leader chose to shut down debate and exclude Republicans from offering any amendments to the defense authorization bill, which contains the repeal language,” Kelley said. “She believes that was unfair and contrary to the rules and tradition of the Senate.”

Still, Kelley maintained that Collins agrees with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen that the military’s gay ban “should be repealed” and recalled that the senator voted in favor of a repeal amendment in committee during the spring.

Another senator who could be in play is Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Fresh off her re-election win as an independent write-in candidate in her state, Murkowski isn’t beholden to the far right for her victory on Election Day. She also didn’t vote one way or the other on the motion to proceed on the defense authorization bill when it came before the Senate in September.

A local TV station in Alaska reported last week that Murkowski was in a position to vote to advance the defense authorization bill. But Michael Brumas, a Murkowski spokesperson, later clarified that this support is dependent on the result of the Pentagon report.

“Sen. Murkowski would not oppose a defense authorization bill that includes a repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] if the Pentagon study shows that repeal is supported by the troops, doesn’t hurt performance, morale or recruitment and the military allows for an orderly transition,” Brumas said.

Additionally, Brumas said the manner in which Senate leadership handles the amendment process would be important for Murkowski’s support.

“If the majority attempts to push it through allowing little or no debate or votes on amendments, Sen. Murkowski would be inclined to oppose those efforts,” Brumas said.

One surprise senator who could vote to move forward with the defense authorization bill is Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.). Last week, LGBT advocates asserted one of his staffers informed them that he wants to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and would vote for cloture on the defense authorization bill.

Laura Martin, communications director for the Stonewall Democratic Club of Southern Nevada, said she and other activists met with Margot Allen, Ensignā€™s regional representative on military issues, who informed the group of the senator’s position.

ā€œThe first question was about ā€˜Donā€™t Ask, Donā€™t Tellā€™ and his staffer said he supports repeal,ā€ Martin said. ā€œWe asked her to clarify three times and she said he will vote in the affirmative on the defense authorization with ā€˜Donā€™t Ask, Donā€™t Tellā€™ repeal in it.ā€

Jennifer Cooper, an Ensign spokesperson, later said the senator was awaiting the Pentagon report “to see if any changes to this policy can or should be done” with regard to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” She also said he wants to hear testimony from the military service chiefs.

ā€œAlso, he plans to review all of the merits of the Defense Authorization bill before voting one way or another; hopefully it will be a fully open amendment process,ā€ she added.

Other senators that are seen as being in play are moderate Republicans Scott Brown (R-Mass.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). The two Democratic senators who joined Republicans in voting “no” in September on moving forward with the defense authorization ā€” Arkansas Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln ā€” could also change their votes.

None of these senators’ offices responded to the Blade’s request to comment on how they would vote on the defense authorization when it comes up during the lame duck session.

The slightly different composition of the Senate also raises questions about the votes from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who assumed his seat after winning election on Nov. 2, and Republican Senator-elect Mark Kirk of Illinois, who is set to take his seat during the lame duck session of Congress.

During his campaign, Manchin said he wants to wait to hear from military leaders before moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. As a U.S. House member, Kirk voted against an amendment that would have repealed the military’s gay ban when it came to the floor in May.

Neither the office of Manchin nor Kirk’s transition team responded to the Blade’s request for comment on the issue.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court begins fall term with major gender affirming care case on the docket

Justices rule against Biden admin over emergency abortion question

Published

on

The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present. Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Photo Credit: Fred Schilling, The Supreme Court of the U.S.)

The U.S. Supreme Court’s fall term began on Monday with major cases on the docket including U.S. v Skrmetti, which could decide the fate of 24 state laws banning the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors.

First, however, the justices dealt another blow to the Biden-Harris administration and reproductive rights advocates by leaving in place a lower court order that blocked efforts by the federal government to allow hospitals to terminate pregnancies in medical emergencies.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had issued a guidance instructing healthcare providers to offer abortions in such circumstances, per the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which kicked off litigation over whether the law overrides state abortion restrictions.

The U.S. Court of appeals for the 5th Circuit had upheld a decision blocking the federal government from enforcing the law via the HHS guidance, and the U.S. Department of Justice subsequently asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The justices also declined to hear a free speech case in which parents challenged a DOJ memo instructing officials to look into threats against public school officials, which sparked false claims that parents were being labeled “domestic terrorists” for raising objections at school board meetings over, especially, COVID policies and curricula and educational materials addressing matters of race, sexuality, and gender.

Looking to the cases ahead, U.S. v. Skrmetti is “obviously the blockbuster case of the term,” a Supreme Court practitioner and lecturer at the Harvard law school litigation clinic told NPR.

The attorney, Deepak Gupta, said the litigation “presents fundamental questions about the scope of state power to regulate medical care for minors, and the rights of parents to make medical decisions for your children.”

The ACLU, which represents parties in the case, argues that Tennessee’s gender affirming care ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by allowing puberty blockers and hormone treatments for cisgender patients younger than 18 while prohibiting these interventions for their transgender counterparts.

The organization notes that “leading medical experts and organizations ā€” such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics ā€” oppose these restrictions, which have already forced thousands of families across the country to travel to maintain access to medical care or watch their child suffer without it.”

When passing their bans on gender affirming care, conservative states have cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned constitutional protections for abortion that were in place since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

The ACLU notes “U.S. v. Skrmetti will be a major test of how far the court is willing to stretch Dobbs to allow states to ban other health care” including other types of reproductive care like IVF and birth control.

Also on the docket in the months ahead are cases that will decide core questions about the government’s ability to regulate “ghost guns,” firearms that are made with build-it-yourself kits available online, and the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring age verification to access pornography.

The latter case drew opposition from liberal and conservative groups that argue it will have a chilling effect on adults who, as NPR wrote, “would realistically fear extortion, identity theft and even tracking of their habits by the government and others.”

Continue Reading

National

Lesbian software developer seeks to preserve lost LGBTQ history

Published

on

ā€˜There's so much history, and we have to transfer it to the digital,ā€™ says Kristen Gwinn-Becker.

Up until the early 2010s, if you searched ā€œBabe Ruthā€ in the Baseball Hall of Fame, nothing would pop up. To find information on the greatest baseball player of all time, you would have to search ā€œRuth, George Herman.ā€ 

That is the way online archival systems were set up and there was a clear problem with it. Kristen Gwinn-Becker was uniquely able to solve it. ā€œI’m a super tech geek, history geek,ā€ she says, ā€œI love any opportunity to create this aha moment with people through history.ā€ 

Gwinn-Becker is the founder and CEO of HistoryIT, a company that helps organizations create digital archives that are genuinely accessible. ā€œI believe history is incredibly important, but I also think it’s in danger,ā€ she says. ā€œLess than 2% of our historical materials are digital and even less of that is truly accessible.ā€

Gwinn-Beckerā€™s love for history is personal. As a lesbian, growing up, she sought out evidence of herself across time. ā€œI was interested in stories, interested in people whose lives mirrored mine to help me understand who I was.ā€ 

ā€œ[My identity] influences my love of history and my strong belief in history is important,ā€ she says.

Despite always loving history, Gwinn-Becker found herself living and working in San Francisco during the early dot com boom and bust in the ā€˜90s. ā€œIt was an exciting time,ā€ she recounts, ā€œif you were intellectually curious, you could just jump right in.ā€

Being there was almost happenstance, Gwinn-Becker explained: ā€œI was 20 years old and wanted to live in San Francisco.ā€ Quickly, she fell in love with ā€œall of the incredible new tools.ā€ She was working with non-profits that encouraged her to take classes and apply the new skills. ā€œI was really into software, web, and database development.ā€ 

But history eventually pulled her back. ā€œTech was fun, but I didn’t want to be a developer,ā€ she says. Something was missing. When the opportunity to get a Ph.D. in history from George Washington University presented itself, ā€œI got to work on the Eleanor Roosevelt papers, who I was and remain quite passionate about.ā€ 

Gwinn-Beckerā€™s research on Eleanor Roosevelt planted the seeds of digital preservation. ā€œEleanor Roosevelt doesn’t have a single archive. FDR has lots but the first ladies donā€™t,ā€ she says. Gwinn-Becker wondered what else was missing from the archive ā€” and what would be missing from the archive if we didnā€™t start preserving it now.

Those questions eventually led Gwinn-Becker to found HistoryIT in 2011. Since then, the company has created digital archives for organizations ranging from museums and universities to sororities, fraternities, and community organizations.

This process is not easy. ā€œDigital preservation is more than scanning,ā€ says Gwinn-Becker. ā€œMost commercial scannersā€™ intent is to create a digital copy, not an exact replica.ā€ 

To digitally preserve something, Gwinn-Beckerā€™s team must take a photo with overhead cameras. ā€œThere is an international standard,ā€ she says, ā€œyou create an archival TIFF.ā€ 

ā€œItā€™s the biggest possible file we can create now. Thatā€™s how you future-proof.ā€

Despite the common belief that the internet is forever, JPEGs saved to social media or websites are a poor archive. ā€œItā€™s more expensive for us to do projects in the 2000 to 2016 period than to do 19th-century projects,ā€ explains Gwinn-Becker, since finding adequate files for preservation can be tricky. ā€œThe images themselves are deteriorated because they’re compressed so much,ā€ she says.

Her clients are finding that having a strong digital archive is useful outside of the noble goal of protecting history. ā€œIt’s a unique trove of content,ā€ says Gwinn-Becker. One client saw a 790% increase in donations after incorporating the digital archive into fundraising efforts. ā€œItā€™s important to have content quickly and easily,ā€ says Gwinn-Becker, whose team also works with clients on digital strategy for their archive.

One of Gwinn-Beckerā€™s favorite parts of her job is finding what she calls ā€œhidden histories.ā€

ā€œWe [LGBTQ people] are represented everywhere. We’re represented in sports, in religious history, in every kind of movement, not only our movement. I’m passionate about bringing those stories out.ā€ 

Sometimes queer stories are found in unexpected places, says Gwinn-Becker. ā€œWe work with sororities and fraternities. There are a hell of a lot of our stories there.ā€

Part of digital preservation is also making sure that history being created in the moment is not lost to future generations. HistoryIT works with NFL teams, for example. One of their clients is the Panthers, who hired Justine Lindsay, the first transgender cheerleader in the NFL. Gwinn-Becker was excited to be able to preserve information about Lindsay in the digital record. ā€œItā€™s making history in the process of preserving it,ā€ says Gwinn-Becker.

Preserving queer history, either through ā€œhidden historiesā€ or LGBTQ-specific archives, is vital says Gwinn-Becker. ā€œThink about whose history gets marginalized, whose history gets moved to the sidelines, whose history gets just erased,ā€ she prompts. ā€œIn a time of fake news, we need to point to evidence in the past. Queer people have existed since there were humans, but their stories are hidden,ā€ Gwinn-Becker says.

Meanwhile, Gwinn-Becker accidentally finds herself as part of queer history too. Listed as one of Inc. Magazineā€™s Top 250 Female Founders of 2024, she is surrounded by names like Christina Aguilera, Selena Gomez, and Natalie Portman. 

One name stuck out. ā€œNever in my life did I think I’d be on the same list ā€“ other than the obvious one ā€“ with Billie Jean King. That’s pretty exciting,ā€ she said. 

But she canā€™t focus on the win for too long. ā€œWhen I go to sleep at night, I think ā€˜there’s so much history, and we have to transfer it to the digital,ā€™ā€ she says, ā€œWe have a very small period in which to do that in a meaningful way.ā€

(This story is part of the Digital Equity Local Voices Fellowship lab through News is Out. The lab initiative is made possible with support from Comcast NBCUniversal.)

Continue Reading

National

Bidenā€™s acknowledgment of LGBTQ History Month ā€˜consequentialā€™

Equality Forum honors 31 new ā€˜iconsā€™ as annual commemoration kicks off

Published

on

Rep. Mark Pocan was honored with Equality Forumā€™s International Role Model Award. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

President Joe Biden signed a letter acknowledging Equality Forumā€™s LGBTQ History Month launch event held on Sunday, writing that, ā€œby celebrating stories of bravery, resilience and joy, your example inspires hope in all people seeking a life true to who they are.ā€

Malcolm Lazin, Equality Forum executive director, said Bidenā€™s letter is ā€œconsequential.ā€ He noted that one year before the White House delivered a proclamation for Black History Month, it issued a letter signed by the president.

ā€œIt’s our hope that next year, our nation’s 47th president will issue that proclamation for LGBT History Month,ā€ Lazin said.

Equality Forum is an LGBTQ civil rights organization with an educational focus based in Philadelphia. The groupā€™s work includes coordinating LGBTQ History Month, producing documentary films and overseeing the application for and installation of government-approved queer historic markers.

When spearheading LGBTQ History Month for the first time back in 2006, Lazin said many pushed back against the idea. Some media outlets claimed it was trying to turn straight people gay or promote pedophilia. 

But Lazin said the homophobic reactions died down when people were educated on topics that typically werenā€™t taught in a widespread way.

ā€œWe were demonized, marginalized, and vilified,ā€ Lazin said. ā€œOne of the certain principal ways you’re going to make headway is if you humanize who we are, and also educate people about the important contributions we make to our common society.ā€

Education has always been Equality Forumā€™s solution to societal backlash or controversy since its inception, Lazin said.

The organization got its start in 1993 under the name PrideFest Philadelphia. Lazin, who was the founder, said it was created during a time when Pride parades were the main focus of the LGBTQ community. 

In an effort to shift focus onto civil rights issues, PrideFest hosted its first LGBTQ summit that eventually transformed into an event featuring national and international organizations. Lazin said it was an effort to educate people on LGBTQ history as well as inform the community on queer rights around the world.

Though that event was terminated in 2020, Lazin is still focused on educating both queer and straight people on LGBTQ civil rights. Equality Forum honors 31 ā€œLGBTQ iconsā€ each year for every day in October.

This initiative began when Equality Forum started coordinating LGBTQ History Month back in 2006, but Lazin didnā€™t notice their efforts taking off until about five years in.

ā€œIn year one, people thought, ā€˜Oh yeah, those are like all the important names of the gay community,ā€™ā€ he said. ā€œPeople paid a little bit more attention the following years, and all of a sudden they’re recognizing, ā€˜Oh, in a certain sense I was clueless about the role models that the gay community has.ā€™ā€

This yearā€™s icons being recognized include names like singers George Michael, Luther Vandross, and Sam Smith; pioneering drag queen William Dorsey Swann; ā€œThe Bachelorā€ star Colton Underwood; Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan; and longtime Washington Blade Editor Kevin Naff.

Pocan received the International Role Model Award during Sundayā€™s LGBTQ History Month launch event. Itā€™s the longest-standing LGBTQ award in the nation, and has been presented to prominent figures like former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.

He said accepting the award allowed him to reflect on the progress thatā€™s been made in a relatively short time.

ā€œI was preparing to make some remarks for the event, and I realized that I’ve been kind of in the front row of a lot of the history making in the country, because more of our history is in the last several decades,ā€ Pocan told the Washington Blade. ā€œThere are significant moments in the past, but where the real improvements have happened have been more recent.ā€

In 1995, former President Bill Clinton invited Pocan, who is gay, and other LGBTQ elected officials to The White House for the first time. When they arrived and were going through security, Pocan said they noticed everyone was wearing blue gloves.

Initially assuming it was due to enhanced security following the aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing, Pocan said they later discovered the Secret Service agents thought they could contract AIDS from out elected officials.

He said the Secret Service issued an apology letter and the Clinton administration made it clear that wasnā€™t their policy. Even more memorable for Pocan was when then-Vice President Al Gore made it a point to shake everyoneā€™s hands at the event.

Comparing that memory to Bidenā€™s recent letter puts the advancements of LGBTQ rights into perspective for Pocan. He said thatā€™s the reason recognizing and remembering queer history is vital.

ā€œIf you donā€™t know the history, itā€™s too easy to repeat it,ā€ he said.

The fight to recognize the global work done toward advancing LGBTQ civil rights, however, isnā€™t over, Lazin said.

Many states are working to restrict LGBTQ topics from being taught in schools. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed HB 1069 last year, dubbed ā€œDonā€™t Say Gayā€ by critics, to prohibit lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The New College of Florida faced backlash when photos of hundreds of library books, many containing LGBTQ topics, overflowing a dumpster were shared online. A New College spokesperson said the books were “taken after discovering that the library did not follow all of the state administrative requirements while conducting the routine disposition of materials.”

Despite what the future may hold for LGBTQ content in schools, Lazin said the resources Equality Forum promotes, including the website featuring 31 queer icons in October, are always available.

ā€œAt least on this site, students, teachers, and guidance counselors have resources,ā€ he said. ā€œSo if you’re an English teacher and you want to be celebrating LGBT History Month, click on poets, or click on authors. You’ve got a whole rich range of people to be able to bring into your curriculum.ā€

The reality of what LGBTQ History Month has become today is more than the work of one organization; Lazin said itā€™s the combined effort of local communities that are curious about their own history.

ā€œWhile we could not possibly take on doing the history of all the cities around the country or in North America or around the world, it really has helped to encourage people to appreciate that history and to make sure that it is well documented,ā€ Lazin said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular