National
2011 to bring new marriage fights across U.S.
R.I., Md. best bets for progress, while N.C., Ind. face bans
Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, shown here at a meeting with LGBT supporters, backs same-sex marriage rights. (Photo courtesy of Chafee’s office)
With “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed, the issue of marriage returns to center stage in 2011 as many states are poised to enact same-sex marriage or civil unions legislation — or pursue measures that would repeal or block such rights for gay couples.
With new governors or changes to their state legislatures, Rhode Island, Maryland and New York could advance same-sex marriage legislation as soon as this year.
But changes in the political dynamic after the 2010 elections also mean that marriage rights could be repealed in New Hampshire and amendments banning same-sex marriage could go forward in North Carolina, Indiana and Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, legislation to enact civil unions could advance in Hawaii and Delaware.
Rhode Island is among the states that could see early action in passing a same-sex marriage bill.
Newly seated Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I), who supports same-sex marriage, has replaced Gov. Donald Carcieri (R), who opposed gay nuptials.
In his inauguration address, Chafee encouraged the Rhode Island General Assembly “quickly consider and adopt” a same-sex marriage bill to send to his desk.
“When marriage equality is the law in Rhode Island, we honor our forefathers who risked their lives and fortune in the pursuit of human equality,” he said.
Same-sex marriage bills were introduced in both chambers of the Rhode Island General Assembly last week. House Speaker Gordon Fox, who’s gay, supports the passage of a marriage bill through his chamber.
Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said she thinks the marriage bill will come before the House Judiciary Committee before the end of January.
“So we’ll be holding hearings, and then, we’ll be looking at, of course, the committee vote and the floor vote as soon as possible,” she said.
Karen Loewy, senior staff attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the prospects for passing a marriage bill in Rhode Island are “really fantastic” and called Chafee an “active supporter” of the legislation.
“It was part of his inaugural address,” she said. “He’s really committed to getting a marriage bill passed.”
The Senate isn’t expected to take action on the marriage bill until the House finishes action on the measure. The legislative session ends in June, so the marriage bill would have to reach the governor’s desk by that time.
Kushnir said the biggest challenge in passing a marriage bill in Rhode Island is ensuring that lawmakers address the legislation as they take on other issues facing the state.
“There are really important issues also — the economy, jobs and the budget — that are before the legislature,” Kushnir said. “But you know what? Everyone knows that passing marriage equality and treating everybody equal here in Rhode Island does very well for all of those issues.”
Loewy said passage in the Senate remains “a stronger challenge,” but support should exist in the chamber to pass a marriage bill.
“Even there, I think, you’ve got folks who are ready to understand how important this is for same-sex couples in Rhode Island,” she said.
LGBT rights supporters are also optimistic about the chances of a same-sex marriage bill passing in Maryland, where the configuration of the Senate for the first time provides a path for passage.
Last month, a majority of members who support same-sex marriage were named to Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, ensuring for the first time that a same-sex marriage measure would clear the panel and reach the Senate floor for a vote. Up until now, the committee has blocked the marriage bill, even though the chamber was in Democratic control.
Sen. Richard Madaleno of Montgomery Country, who’s gay, last week expressed confidence about passage of the marriage bill.
“I have never been so optimistic about getting this done,” he said. “Today at lunch I sat quietly by myself with a list of the members of the new Senate going over again and again in my head where the votes are, and I’m feeling really good right now both for the floor vote and the cloture vote.”
The bill is being introduced by Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D-Dist. 17) and Del. Keiffer Mitchell (D-Dist. 44). The Senate version will be advanced by Majority Leader Rob Garagiola (D-Dist. 15) and Madaleno.
Supporters in the Senate believe they have the 24 votes needed to pass the marriage bill on an up or down vote but are less certain about whether they have the 29 votes needed to invoke cloture and stop an expected filibuster by same-sex marriage opponents.
Another obstacle could be a referendum on the marriage law. Nearly all observers of the General Assembly expect opponents to initiate petitions to call for a referendum, which would stop the bills from taking effect until after voters decide on the issue.
In New York, supporters of same-sex marriage are looking to the state legislature to approve a bill extending marriage rights to gay couples that would be sent to newly seated Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s (D) desk for his signature.
As in previous years, a marriage bill is expected to be able pass again in the State Assembly, where Democrats have retained control of the chamber, but the situation is different in the Senate, where Republicans have regained control after the election.
Still, Republican Leader Dean Skelos suggested prior to the election that if Republicans regain power in the Senate, he would allow a vote on same-sex marriage to come, even though — like all GOP senators — he previously voted against the marriage bill.
“Let me just say, when we win back the majority, there is legislation that I believe all of you interested in, that I believe should be voted on again,” Skelos said in October. “We’re not going to stifle discussion. We are not going to stifle votes. And it is truly my belief that people should be allowed to vote their consciences.”
Even if the legislation comes up for a vote in the Senate, the prospects for passage are uncertain. When the bill previously came up for a vote late in 2009, the measure failed 24-38.
Two lawmakers who support same-sex marriage were elected to the Senate since the last vote on the legislation, but that change is far from the 32 votes needed to pass a bill in the Senate.
Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, said the “political dynamic remains very promising” for passing a same-sex marriage bill as well as a transgender civil rights bill in New York.
“The phrase that I’ve been using is that there’s a clear and credible path to victory in the not distant future,” Levi said.
Asked whether passage would be likely in the next two years given the makeup of the legislature, Levi replied, “For me, it’s not talking about timeline, it’s about the work we have to do to make sure that we can have a successful vote as soon as we can.”
Dan Pinello, a gay government professor at the City University of New York, said he’s not optimistic about passage of a marriage bill in the legislature over the course of the next two years.
“[Skelos] has said a few things suggesting that [he would bring the bill to a vote], but that’s not a guarantee,” Pinello said. “So, yeah, he could bring it up for a vote, but that’s no guarantee it’s going to pass. I just don’t see it happening, sadly.”
Pinello said the next opportunity to advance same-sex marriage could be in 2013 as a result of the redistricting this year. He said political power should shift from upstate to downstate, which would give Democrats a majority in the Senate.
“Upstate tends to be Republican and downstate tends to be Democratic, so it’s likely even though Republicans will be redrawing the Senate district lines, there’s no way they can still maintain a majority, given the demographic shifts the Census will reveal,” Pinello said.
Repealing marriage in N.H.?
While several states are poised to advance marriage rights, other places could see a rollback of relationship recognition for same-sex couples.
The most prominent of those states is New Hampshire, where opponents of same-sex marriage may have the political power to repeal the marriage law enacted in 2009.
Gov. John Lynch (D), who signed the marriage bill into law, is expected to veto the bill should it come to his desk. But after the election, Republicans now have a super majority in both chambers of the legislature and could override his veto.
Four bills have already been introduced in the legislature to repeal the marriage law.
State Rep. Leo Pepino (R), who introduced one of the bills, said he thinks there is support to repeal the marriage law, according to the Nashau Telegraph.
“I think we have the votes [to repeal],” Pepino said. “We have a lot of really good conservatives and a good conservative doesn’t believe in gay marriage. … It’s a matter of ethics.”
GLAD’s Loewy said the chances of repealing the marriage law in New Hampshire are “hard to quantify,” adding she doesn’t know whether the votes are present to take such action.
“The LGBT community in New Hampshire is very much gearing up for a fight to protect marriage the best way we know how: by talking to legislators about how taking away marriage is going to hurt their families and their kids,” Loewy said.
Loewy added she’s hoping that New Hampshire won’t go down the path of repealing the law and would instead pursue “issues like jobs and the economy that everybody knows is the priority.”
“I think, like I said, the community has a lot of work to do, but, I think, it’s absolutely fair to expect and hope that that’s not the path that New Hampshire’s going to go down,” she said.
Mo Baxley, executive director of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, said the Granite State has never taken away the rights of its citizen, but that is what some anti-gay lawmakers are proposing to do.
“The married gay and lesbian couples here have in no way impacted anybody else’s marriage,” she said. “Let’s move on. Marriage has been debated to death here and the priority right now is the economy and the budget.”
Other states are prepared to advance constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriage.
One such state is North Carolina, where Republicans swept into power in both the House and Senate following the November elections.
Ian Palmquist, executive director of Equality North Carolina, said his organization is “fully expecting” that a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions will advance this year.
“I think there’s a chance of blocking it, but it’s a very tight vote at the moment,” he said.
Palmquist said he’s getting mixed signals on when the vote would come up and said it could be anytime between February and July.
In North Carolina, passing a constitutional amendment requires a third-fifths vote of approval from both chambers of the state legislature followed by a majority of voters at the ballot box.
Palmquist said the measure could be on the ballot in 2011, but he expects it would come to voters in 2012. Such a move would enable conservatives to turn out their base during a presidential election year.
“It would definitely be a challenge to defeat it at the ballot,” Palmquist said. “There is majority support in North Carolina for some form of relationship recognition. We certainly would use that to try to stop this kind of amendment from moving forward.”
Another state where LGBT rights supporters are anticipating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and marriage-like unions is Indiana.
In previous years, advocates had been able to block the amendment in the House because Democrats held a narrow majority in the chamber, but the situation has changed now that Republicans took control of the House and expanded their control of the Senate following the November elections.
Don Sherfick, legislative chair for Indiana Equality, said the prospects for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage passing this year are good in Indiana.
“I guess I would be less than honest if I were to say that things were looking rosy for continuing to unequivocally being able to fight such a thing coming through,” he said.
Anticipating hearings in either the House or Senate or both chambers within six weeks, Sherfick said Indiana Equality is mounting a public relations and lobbying campaign to try to block the amendment.
“People will at least know what they’re doing and we’ll set our sights on fighting it in the next legislature,” he said.
Bil Browning, an Indiana native and editor of the Bilerico Project, said he’s 99.9 percent certain that the Indiana Legislature would pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
“The two things they wanted to do most and first and foremost was a bill that would require a woman to have a sonogram three days before any planned abortion — in the hopes that she’ll see it and not want to have the abortion — and a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage,” Browning said.
For a constitutional amendment to pass in Indiana, it must pass the state legislature twice — a first time and then again after an election — before the measure comes before voters. If the legislature passed an amendment this year, the soonest it could get to voters is 2014.
Browning said gay rights supporters can hope for a change in the makeup of the legislature after the next election as a way to block the amendment from final passage.
“Two years from now, if we can retake the Indiana House it’s probably dead, but for at least passing this session, I’d say [the chances] are 99.9 percent,” he said.
Browning said one factor working in advocates’ favor in Indiana is that all the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the state previously testified before the legislature against the amendment.
Additionally, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), who has called for a “truce” on social issues, is widely considered to be thinking about a run for president and may want to steer clear of marriage prior to 2012. Still, the amendment wouldn’t require his signature for passage.
A similar situation can be found in Pennsylvania, where Republicans took control of the House and retained control of the Senate.
Malcolm Lazin, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Equality Forum, said passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is “of concern” because of new Republican control of the House.
“We were able to successfully block it in the past because the House was controlled by the Democrats,” Lazin said. “That dynamic has now changed. In addition, there is now a Republican governor of Pennsylvania.”
As in Indiana, for a constitutional amendment to pass in Pennsylvania, the measure has to be approved by a majority vote in both chambers of the legislature — once and then again after an election — before going to voters as a ballot measure.
Ted Martin, executive director of Equality Pennsylvania, predicted that the amendment would be introduced in both the House and Senate, but was skeptical of lawmakers’ ability to push it through the legislature.
Martin said the likelihood of the measure passing in the House committee is high, but its passage on the House floor is less certain. For the Senate, which has been controlled by Republicans for more than two decades, Martin said he doubts the measure would make it through committee.
“The Senate, in the past, has always taken a less active tone about it,” Martin said. “They’ve become much more libertarian in their view. Just to remember, we were able to block this in committee three times before.”
Hawaii, Del. to take up civil unions
As many states take on the marriage issue — either to advance gay nuptials or ban them — two other states are prepared to enact civil unions early in 2011.
In Hawaii, LGBT advocates are ready to advance a civil unions bill that newly seated Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) has pledged to sign.
Last summer, a civil unions bill in the Aloha State was vetoed by former Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, but with her gone, gay rights supporters see a clear path toward passing the legislation.
Alan Spector, co-chair of Equality Hawaii, said he expects that the civil unions bill will easily pass the legislature to reach Abercrombie’s desk soon after the session starts on Jan. 19.
“With the November 2010 election behind us, and a new governor and new leadership, we’re pretty confident that we will pass the bill early in 2011,” Spector said.
Spector estimated that the legislation would be introduced in the third week of January and ideally would make it to the governor’s desk by March.
“The process can go as quickly as a month or it can take the whole session — or it can on into 2012,” Spector said. “It all depends on what happens, but we’re pretty optimistic that it’s going to go quickly this year.”
Advocates are pursuing civil unions in Hawaii instead of marriage because in 1998, voters approved a constitutional amendment granting the legislature the power to ban same-sex marriage, which lawmakers then pursued.
Similarly, LGBT advocates in Delaware are ready to advance legislation this year that would enact civil unions in the First State.
Peter Schott, political vice president of Delaware Stonewall Democrats, said the “atmosphere is probably better than it’s been in a few years” for passing civil unions in the state.
“We have formed a coalition, which a number of elected officials are on — civic leaders,” Schott said.
LGBT rights supporters know they have the votes in the House, Schott said, but questions about passage in the Senate remain because leadership could refer the legislation to an unfavorable committee.
Schott said supporters of civil unions in Delaware want to pass the legislation this year so it doesn’t come up during the 2012 election season.
National
Barney Frank on trans rights, 2028, and the need to ‘reform the left’
Gay former congressman starts home hospice care while completing new book
Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who served in the House from 1981 until his retirement in 2013 and who became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay in 1987, has resurfaced in the news over the past two weeks after announcing he has entered home hospice care and plans to publish a new book on, among other things, how Democrats can and should regain control of Congress.
According to media reports and an interview Frank conducted this week with the Washington Blade, his book, entitled “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy,” calls on the Democratic Party’s progressive left leaning members to be more strategic in pushing for laws and policies initially considered “politically unacceptable” to most U.S. voters and the American people.
Frank told the Blade he believes the LGBTQ rights movement has succeeded in advancing most of its agenda seeking protections against discrimination by initially pushing less controversial advances such as the end to the ban on gays in the military and non-discrimination in employment before taking on the more controversial issue of same-sex marriage.
While acknowledging that Congress has yet to pass a national law banning discrimination against LGBTQ people in employment, housing, and public accommodations as 22 states and D.C. have already done, he points to the two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, one legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, and the other declaring sexual orientation and gender identity are protected categories for which employment discrimination is prohibited under existing federal law in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.
Frank notes that while some in the LGBTQ community are fearful that LGBTQ rights are under attack and may be pulled back under the Trump administration, he believes Republicans in Congress at this time will not attempt to repeal any existing LGBTQ protections, especially those regarding marriage rights and employment protections secured by the Supreme Court rulings.
He says transgender rights are the remaining LGBTQ issue that have yet to be adopted rationally, and he fully supports ongoing efforts to advance trans rights. But like his criticism of the progressive left among Democrats, Frank says the efforts to advance trans rights could be jeopardized by the highly controversial issue of “male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports.”
He added, “That’s the most controversial, the most difficult. It affects the fewest number of people.” While he says trans rights supporters should continue to advocate for that, “they should not make it a litmus test and say well if you’re not for that you’re not a supporter of the rights of transgender people. There are places where people are supportive, and we want to encourage that.”
Frank, 86, told Politico he has entered home hospice care as he deals with ongoing congestive heart failure. He said he is remaining in his home in Ogunquit, Maine, where he has lived with his husband, Jim Ready, since retiring from Congress in 2013.
“I’ve been doing some writing. I wrote this book,” Frank told the Blade. “I’ve relaxed. Meanwhile, my health has been failing. Jim has been a saint in taking care of me,” he said. “And so, I take it easy.”
Frank spoke to the Washington Blade in a phone interview from his home on May 4.
Washington Blade: We’re hearing some interesting reports about the book you’ve been writing. Can you say when it will be published?
Barney Frank: Sept. 15 is the publication date.
Blade: Some of the reports about the book in the media have said you want the far left within the Democratic Party to be more cautious.
Frank: No, I’ll give you this. The job is to defeat populism to keep democracy. Clearly you have to know what caused it. I believe that the essential cause in the surge of populism was economic inequality and the failure of mainstream liberals to address inequality. And beginning in the ‘80s economic growth became less and less fair in its institutions. And that led to all this anger.
So, the mainstream left finally figured that out after [Bernie] Sanders and Trump in ’16. So, we then – because I was working to make that change – got the Democrats to pay attention to economic inequality. And Joe Biden’s program did. The problem is at that point, people on the left who had correctly been critical of the failure to address equality said, OK, that’s not the only problem you guys are missing. There are all these other problems.
And they jumped from being right on the question of inequality and equality to believing in a lot more social changes, some of which were just unacceptable to the public. And the mistake they make is they don’t distinguish – there are a lot of issues I’ve been for in my life, but I had to assert that they were not currently politically survivable.
So, you do two things. Those that are politically survivable work to get them done. Others, you become an advocate. But you don’t make the most controversial part of your agenda litmus tests and drive away your allies. You will remember that on marriage that was an issue and in 2000 they insisted you will be for marriage.
So, my thesis is that while the mainstream understood its mistake on inequality, the most militant and ideological of our left misunderstand public opinion and they are pushing the public to — and they are insisting on acceptance of things that are not politically acceptable.
Blade: Having said what you said, how do you see that impacting gay rights or LGBTQ rights?
Frank: Well in the first place, gay rights – one of the things I want to address – is this fear that gay rights are going to be taken away – rights for LGB people. Nonsense. We’re not going to lose any of those rights. If they tried to undo marriage, for instance, the political reaction they would get would be abortion type sentiment. They are just not going to do that because it causes them too many political problems.
The problem is advances we hope to make in the area of transgender people. But there is no chance of losing – I can’t think of a single right that is in jeopardy. They are not going to reintroduce the ban in the military. They’re not going to tell people their marriages are cancelled. Again, the Republicans are not even trying to do that because they know there would be a terrible backlash.
With regard to LGBT there is one analogy. And that is the most controversial issue we faced over the years on what was the gay-bisexual agenda was same-sex marriage. And we left that until the end. And you remember we did the military. We did ENDA. We moved on to everything else, and it wasn’t until the very end that we went into marriage. [NOTE: ENDA did not ultimately pass.]
I think the analogy to that is male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports. That’s the most controversial, the most difficult. It affects the fewest number of people. And I believe had we deferred on marriage — people who believe that’s important should advocate for it. But they should not make it a litmus test and say well if you’re not for that you’re not a supporter of the rights of transgender people. There are places where people are supportive, and we want to encourage that.
Blade: You said you don’t think we will lose any rights, most of the laws related to nondiscrimination are from the states or municipal laws that were passed.
Frank: Tell me what you think will be lost. You and I always have this problem. I’ve always felt you were cynical and skeptical. Tell me what right we now have that’s in jeopardy.
Blade: One would be if the Supreme Court reverses its decision on same-sex marriage.
Frank: If they do, Congress would now step in on that, which would be the passage of Tammy Baldwin’s bill.
Blade: But what I was going to ask you next is in all the years you’ve been in office and as of now a federal LGBTQ rights bill has not been passed by Congress yet. Is there a chance of that happening?
Frank: I do not think it will happen because the members of Congress do not want to be in the position of voting to cancel people’s marriages. There are valid marriages throughout the country. And the notion that Congress will pass a bill invalidating those, no they won’t. They won’t do anything that’s as disruptive and that will cause a strong reaction. Have you seen a federal bill to do that? I haven’t.
Blade: No, and I am sorry if I’m not putting the question across correctly. I’m talking about the bill that bans discrimination based on employment, public accommodations and other areas for LGBTQ people that Congress has not yet passed. You co-sponsored that for many years.
Frank: I know that, and the Supreme Court did that one. No, I don’t think that – oh, all right, that’s a different question than marriage. If the Supreme Court reverses itself on that – I don’t see any sign that they’re going to, then I think you would see the federal bill passed.
[He is referring to the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that employment discrimination against gay, bi, and trans people was equivalent to sex discrimination, which is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.]
Blade: Are you talking about marriage?
Frank: For both for marriage and for non-[discrimination] – I don’t think a marriage bill would pass nationally. To distinguish, I don’t think a bill striking down marriages would pass. Too much violent reaction. As to employment discrimination, where they haven’t acted yet, if the Supreme Court changes that – I think that’s extremely unlikely – then I think Congress would step in.
Blade: Are you saying we may not need an LGBTQ non-discrimination act by Congress for the states that haven’t passed that?
Frank: I would be in favor of that, yes. But again, I think you and I – you have always been pessimistic. There is a political time now that works in our favor. And as I said, on abortion, they burned themselves very badly on abortion. And yes, I’m still for a national anti-discrimination bill. But I do not think the right wing wants to be caught taking rights away that already exist. Because that’s a lot harder than denying them in the first place. And I don’t see any movement for that. You tell me what you are worried about. What bills are you worried about?
Blade: I was simply saying they haven’t yet passed a federal non-discrimination bill.
Frank: No, what’s going to change on the Supreme Court? I don’t see a pretty quick reversal on the Supreme Court. So, I think people are just – they have to have a cause. And they are inflating the likelihood that we are going to lose some rights when I see no evidence of it. And in fact, I see a lot of political reasons why those in Congress don’t want to do that.
I’ll tell you there are a lot of Republicans who would vote for same-sex marriage. For example, the leadership would say for Christ’s sake, don’t bring that up. They don’t want to take a position on it. And they got burned on abortion, badly.
Blade: To the extent that you are observing this, do you think the LGBTQ rights organizations are doing what they should be doing?
Frank: Well, I think some are stressing the negative too much. Because when people believe nothing good ever happens, they may get discouraged. I think they should be concentrating on the transgender issue. And I know the most controversial parts are protecting people’s rights to medical care, their rights selecting their own gender. And that’s what I would be working on.
And yeah, it would be nice to pass the national bill. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Well, if the Democrats get the House, the Senate, and the presidency, maybe it will happen. But I don’t see the urgency of that because I don’t see any movement to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision.
Blade: What message would you have for the LGBTQ community?
Frank: My message is one, we’re in good shape. And two, that what remains in the transgender issue – who is first? Which are those of your issues that are the most politically acceptable. And you work your way through and as you win on some of those the resistance on the tougher ones will diminish. And the other issue is we are – the problem is the stand to protect the rights of transgender people. But the rights for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, I do not think they are in jeopardy and I do not think a lot of resources should be spent on being what I think is a very small threat.
Blade: For those states and municipalities that do not have laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination, do you think attitudes are changing so there would be little or no discrimination?
Frank: Oh, no question. First of all, I think it’s very unlikely that any of the rights they have will be taken away. And secondly, if they had to take some positive steps to take away protections they would not do it. And I think that ship has sailed in our direction and isn’t going back. In the end, you cannot underestimate there’s a big political difference between denying people their rights in the first place and taking it away from them after they’ve enjoyed it.
Anything is theoretically possible, but I don’t see any evidence that’s likely to happen.
Blade: We’re coming up to the midterm elections this year, but is there anyone coming up in the next presidential election who you might be supporting?
Frank: Oh, I think at this point we’re going to have a fairly open Democratic process. And it’s very clear at this point the way American politics is going it will be a basically supportive Democrat against a basically opposed Republican. And I’ll be supporting the Democrat. And so, this Democrat would be the best one, the most electable. And which one, I haven’t decided that. I want to see how people will fare when they start running.
But I think it is inconceivable that the Democrats would nominate someone who is not fully supportive.
Blade: Some people might be asking what you have been doing since you retired from Congress.
Frank: I’ve been doing some writing. I wrote this book. I’ve relaxed. Meanwhile, my health has been failing. Jim [husband Jim Ready] has been a saint in taking care of me. And so, I take it easy. In terms of what I do, I have two rules, two pieces of advice for people who retire. One is that you should make up two lists. One is you should have a bucket list, a list of things you want to do before you’re through. But more important than the bucket list is a list that rhymes with bucket. That’s a very important list. And that’s one that I increasingly defer to.
Blade: And what is the one other than bucket?
Frank: It rhymes with bucket. What rhymes with bucket?
Blade: Oh, OK.
Frank: That’s the list I follow.
Florida
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
Republican Fla. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed anti-DEI bill
Following the passage of anti-DEI legislation in Florida, Key West will no longer receive any state funding for its future Pride events.
In a letter provided to the Key West Business Guild, the LGBTQ visitor and tourism center for the string of islands, a senior assistant county attorney for Monroe County officially said that the organization would no longer receive funding for its ongoing projects as a result of Senate Bill 1134 and House Bill 1001, starting in 2027.
The popular Key West Pride, gay men–leaning Tropical Heat weekend, and Womenfest will no longer receive any state money. This is something that Gay Key West Visitor Center Executive Director Rob Dougherty highlighted will shift how all the largest LGBTQ events in the Keys will be held after this year.
He said that the explanation is solely a result of SB 1134 and HB 1001, which limits the official actions of local governments by “prohibiting counties and municipalities, respectively, from funding or promoting or taking official action as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion …”
The legislation is being used to impose restrictions on funding events that exclude — whereas the events’ true purpose is to uplift already marginalized groups.
“Womenfest lost it [funding] because it’s a women’s-only event. Tropical Heat lost it because it’s a men’s-only event … that’s how this is being applied.”
This will not impact anything this year, Dougherty assured the Washington Blade; however, the future is not as certain.
“The law that (Republican Florida) Gov. DeSantis signed does not go into effect until Jan. 1, so for 2026 we’re okay,” Dougherty told the Blade. “But it impacts Key West Pride 2027, it impacts Tropical Heat 2027 and Womenfest — so we have lost all funding for those three events.”
He said that this will amount to a large chunk of the expected funding for the LGBTQ celebrations, which the Key West tourism board says is “internationally known as a gay mecca.”
“We’re due to lose about $200,000. Not all of that is direct, but the way that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) distributes their money, about $75,000 of it is for Key West Pride, and that helps to pay for things like marketing, swag, and other things that promote the event.”
He went on to explain that marketing to many major metropolitan areas with large LGBTQ populations may not see the same Key West advertisements and push as in years past — and that is the point.
“Our digital marketing, our print marketing, our SEO marketing — all of that is paid for through there, and it targets places with direct flights like Washington, D.C., New York, Philly, Atlanta, Dallas. So it’s definitely going to impact that.”
The money that will stop coming is not just to run events and celebrations, he explained. Money that goes back directly into the community is going to be hardest hit.
“An estimated 250,000 LGBTQ+ travelers make it to Key West on an annual basis, and on a very conservative basis, for every LGBTQ+ person there are two to four allies traveling with the same values.”
“The TDC also estimates that $1,500+ is spent per person per visit … so if you take those figures and multiply those all together, it comes up to about $1.2 billion … that is potentially going to be lost.”
He says that this will intrinsically change how Key West’s tourism — especially the large LGBTQ side of it — will run, especially since gay vacations need a foundation and expectation of safety and support to blossom.
“We travel based upon where we feel most welcome,” Dougherty said. “Key West has always been its own little place … the LGBTQ+ history of Key West and everything about Key West has always been a little bit weird for people, and that’s why they come here.”
The Guild was formed in 1978 to encourage summer tourism and support Key West’s gay community — becoming the nation’s first LGBTQ destination marketing organization. It has grown tremendously from its original membership to now include more than 475 enterprises representing virtually every facet of the island’s business community.
He also went on to say that this should be eye-opening for anywhere considered an LGBTQ destination, regardless of whether it is in a blue state or a red one.
“I think it can be a wake-up call across the country, because if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.”
Federal Government
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
Mass. college accused of violating Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.
Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.
The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.
The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.
This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.
Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.
“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”
“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”
This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.
Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.
Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.
PHOTOS: Miss Gay Western Maryland
Barney Frank on trans rights, 2028, and the need to ‘reform the left’
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
A reign defined by commitment and human impact
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
Lesbifriends Travel to host queer night out
The queer appeal of ‘The Devil Wears Prada’
