National
Immigration talks intrigue UAFA supporters
Schumer, Graham renew talks on comprehensive legislation
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has reportedly restarted talks on comprehensive immigration reform legislation (photo courtesy Schumer’s office).
Reports that key U.S. senators have restarted talks on comprehensive immigration reform legislation have piqued the interest of LGBT rights supporters who see the discussions as a potential path for passing the Uniting American Families Act.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said his organization would push for a UAFA-inclusive bill if the talks lead to a comprehensive immigration reform measure.
“If a bill does move forward, we are going to be working very hard and watching very closely to make sure that it is inclusive of the Uniting American Families Act,” Ralls said.
Fred Sainz, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of communications, said many questions remain about the substance of the talks and when they would result in a bill, but added that HRC would also advocate for making UAFA a component of comprehensive legislation.
“We would obviously fight mightily in order to include UAFA in any immigration reform proposal,” he said.
As it was introduced in the 111th Congress, UAFA would enable gay and lesbian Americans to sponsor their foreign same-sex partners for residency in the United States. Based on numbers from the U.S. Census in 2000, passage of UAFA would impact an estimated 36,000 bi-national same-sex couples in the country that could be torn apart under current immigration law.
Supporters of UAFA have seen comprehensive immigration reform legislation as the best chance for passing the pro-LGBT measure and have been working with key members of Congress and immigration groups to make the bill a provision in the larger package.
On Monday, Politico reported that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the chair of Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, had rekindled talks with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on moving forward with a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate.
Last year, Graham was involved in discussions on moving forward with a reform bill, but backed out reportedly because he was unhappy with the Senate leadership’s decision to advance the legislation ahead of a climate change bill. Neither saw passage in the 111th Congress.
Graham was quoted in Politico this week as saying his talks with Schumer on the immigration reform bill in the 112th Congress are in the very beginning stages.
“It’s in the infant stage,” Graham reportedly said. “I don’t know what the political appetite is to do something.”
Graham’s office didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request to confirm that the senator had been in talks with Schumer or whether the South Carolina senator would support UAFA as part of an immigration reform bill.
But a Schumer aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed for the Blade that the New York senator and Graham restarted discussions on comprehensive immigration reform early this year, but acknowledged the talks are in “the very early stages.”
“They saw to basically pick up where they left off in terms of trying to formulate a comprehensive immigration reform package that could muster 60 votes in the Senate,” the aide said.
For now, the aide said the focus of efforts is reaching out to outside stakeholders to “try to flesh out the political appetite for passing a comprehensive reform package” in the 112th Congress.
The Politico article also reports that aides to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have been had talks with Schumer’s staff on immigration. In December, Murkowski was a surprise vote in favor of the DREAM Act — failed legislation that would have offered a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pursued a college education or military service.
Still, Murkowski reportedly told Politico that she hadn’t yet been personally engaged in talks on immigration.
“Right now, I’m just so focused on what’s happening with the energy issues, I haven’t been engaged in it,” she was quoted as saying.
In the last Congress, Murkowski was among the Republicans who voted for hate crimes protections legislation and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. Her office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to comment on whether she would support UAFA as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package.
The chances of passing immigration legislation were bolstered last month when President Obama laid out his vision for reform as part of his State of the Union address.
“I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration,” Obama said. “And I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows.”
Whether sufficient votes are present to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform legislation over the next two years remains to be seen, but passage would almost certainly be more than challenging than it would have been in the last Congress.
Democrats were unable to move forward with an immigration package last year when the 111th Congress ended with the party having 58 seats in the Senate. Now Democrats have just 53 seats.
Further, the Republican-controlled House is expected to be hostile to both immigration reform legislation and UAFA.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said passage of comprehensive immigration reform in the 112th Congress would be “a major surprise” — with or without UAFA.
“Immigration is a highly controversial topic, and the parties just don’t agree,” Sabato said. “Sen. Graham is considered to the left of many of his Republican colleagues on this issue. Moreover, while it’s possible the Democratic Senate may pass something, it seems very improbable that the Republican House would.”
Still, Sabato said “you never want to rule anything out completely” in politics and noted, as the lame-duck session last year proved, bipartisan efforts can succeed if everyone gains something politically.
Even if the comprehensive immigration reform doesn’t pass this Congress, UAFA advocates have precedent working in their favor to at least have the provision for bi-national same-sex couples included as part of an initial bill.
In June, Senate leadership leaked a framework for what Democrats want to see as part of immigration reform to lure potential Republican supporters. The 26-page outline emphasizes border security as a priority, but a UAFA-like provision is also mentioned as part of the proposed legislation.
“It will eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status,” the draft states.
Also, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) included a provision for bi-national same-sex couples in the comprehensive immigration reform legislation he introduced late last year. Still, this legislation had no Republican co-sponsors upon introduction.
Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, a think tank arm for the American Immigration Council, said predicting whether the 112th Congress would see UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform at this stage in talks is difficult.
“It’s hard to know whether it would make it into the final formalized piece of legislation because there’s just so many intangibles, especially when you don’t know who all the sponsors might be, where they’ll draw their lines in the sand,” she said.
Immigration Equality’s Ralls said he continues to believe if UAFA is initially included in immigration reform legislation, the provision “won’t be a deal-breaker” as the measure makes its way through Congress.
Ralls maintained the real debate for comprehensive immigration reform will be coming to an agreement on issues such as a path to citizenship, employment verification and border security.
“I’ve thought all along — and still believe — that if Republicans and Democrats can come to an agreement on those issues, that including our families is not going to be an issue that determines the fate of the overall bill,” he said.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
