National
Polis backs executive order barring anti-LGBT job bias
Gay lawmaker skeptical about ENDA’s prospects
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) announced support on Monday for an executive order that would protect LGBT people against bias in the workforce by prohibiting the federal government from contracting with companies that don’t have non-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
“I would applaud that step,” Polis said. “I think that would show a lot of courage on behalf of the administration and demonstrate that they’re committed to moving to a discrimination-free workplace environment.”
The executive order endorsed by Polis during a Washington Blade interview has been seen as an interim alternative to passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — legislation that would would bar job discrimination against LGBT people in most situations in the private and public workforce — while Republicans are in control of the House and progress on the measure is unlikely.
Polis’ announcement comes as House introduction of ENDA was expected this week. Harry Gural, a spokesperson for gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), said his boss would announce when the legislation would be introduced on Wednesday, although the exact day for the debut of the bill isn’t yet final.
Polis has a dim view of the chances of passing ENDA — as well as other pro-LGBT legislation — for at least the next two years with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in charge of the chamber.
“ENDA had several Republican co-sponsors, but I don’t think it’s likely the Republicans will advance employment non-discrimination,” Polis said
In the meantime, Polis said supporters in Congress should try to educate the public on the issue of job protection and grow the number of co-sponsors for ENDA.
“Nationally, we just need to continue to educate other members of Congress and their staff on what it means,” Polis said.
As he dismissed the prospects of passing pro-LGBT bills during the 112th Congress, Polis said the LGBT community will instead for this period have to focus on beating back anti-gay measures.
“I think we’ll be playing defense,” Polis said. “Certainly there are members of the Republican caucus that want to go after and attack some of the progress that’s been made [in the few] last years. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have to work hard to maintain that progress.”
Among the anti-gay measures that Polis said could emerge during the 112th Congress is revocation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and repeal of hate crimes protections legislation — both measures that were passed during the 111th Congress when Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate.
“Those are the two main pieces of progress that we made in the last [Congress], both of which nearly all the Republicans opposed,” Polis said.
Still, Polis expressed optimism about the Student Non-Discrimination Act — a measure he introduced earlier in March in the House along with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) in the Senate.
The legislation, which as of Monday had 103 co-sponsors in the House, would prohibit discrimination, including harassment, against LGBT students in public schools throughout the country.
Polis predicted the number of co-sponsors for the legislation would continue to grow and would see increased support from both Democrats and Republicans.
“I think it’s one thing that conservatives and liberals can agree on — people should feel safe in school,” he said.
Polis noted that supporters of the legislation have been pushing for its inclusion — along with the Safe Schools Improvement Act, a measure requiring schools to set up anti-bullying policies — as part of education reform legislation, or Elementary & Secondary Education Act reauthorization, which President Obama has been calling on Congress to pass this year.
“It’s tied into the fate of ESEA reauthorization, and so if this Congress moves forward with reauthorization of the federal education law, I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to implement protections against bullying in the bill,” Polis said.
Still, Polis said he couldn’t at this point estimate the chances for the success of passing education reform — with or without anti-bullying or anti-discrimination language.
Polis said while the Democratic-controlled Senate intends to pursue broader education reform legislation, Republican leadership in the House is only “looking at a couple of changes rather than a full-out reauthorization.”
“It’s too early to tell whether the 112th [Congress] will issue major changes in federal education policy,” Polis said.
President Obama has yet to enumerate support for the Student Non-Discrimination Act, even though the Obama administration has taken steps to address bullying in schools, such as holding a summit on the issue in March. Polis said he hopes to work with the White House to obtain an endorsement for his bill.
“We’re working closely with the administration to fine tune these bills and help the administration deliver on its promise to reduce and end bullying,” Polis said.
Another larger vehicle that advocates are hoping to use to pass a pro-LGBT measure during the 112th Congress is comprehensive immigration reform.
As talks have reportedly begun again on Capitol Hill related to immigration, LGBT rights supporters are seeking to ensure this larger legislation would incorporate language that would allow gay Americans to sponsor foreign partners for residency within the United States. In the 111th Congress, standalone legislation that would have had this effect was known as the Uniting American Families Act.
But Polis dismissed the possibility of passing comprehensive immigration reform for the next two years — with or without UAFA-like language — given the current makeup of Congress.
“I don’t see much hope for comprehensive immigration reform given the fact that most of the members of the current majority ran against it, so it’s unlikely this Congress,” Polis said.
Still, Polis said he welcomed the decision from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to hold in abeyance the deportation of foreign nationals who are seeking green cards through a same-sex American spouse, although he noted the limitation of this move.
“It’s certainly a step in the right direction, but keep in mind that those individuals would still be unable to work in this country and be unable to access various services legally, so it’s not really a solution,” Polis said.
Polis said he was unsure about prospects for another piece of expected legislation that would eliminate the federal tax on employer-provided health coverage for same-sex couples. In the previous Congress, the legislation was known as the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act.
With the GOP in control of the House, Log Cabin Republicans has said it would push for the legislation and has maintained it has a shot at passage because it relates to lowering taxes, an effort that Republicans traditionally favor.
Polis said he supports the legislation, but deferred to Republican leadership on the chances of the bill passing over the course of the next two years.
“I think it’s unfair that same-sex couples have disparate treatment, but you’d have to ask the question to the Republican majority to see if they support it,” Polis said.
On “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, Polis said he’s awaiting certification for ending the law as the Pentagon implements training for open service in the U.S. military.
The repeal law that President Obama signed in December allows for repeal only after 60 days pass when the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the U.S. military is ready for open service. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has called for expedited training to implement repeal more quickly in the armed forces.
Asked whether he thinks the training is proceeding at a satisfactory pace, Polis replied, “The proof will be in the pudding and we all look forward to the certification of the process — hopefully in the weeks or the very few months ahead when the policy formally is repealed.”
LGBT advocates have been calling on President Obama to issue an executive order that would provide explicit protections for gay service members who feel they’ve experienced discrimination in the armed forces. The White House hasn’t explicitly endorsed or rejected the idea, but has noted policy guidance stating that harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation would be unacceptable in the military.
Despite this call, Polis stopped short of endorsing such an executive order for the U.S. military.
“The military is not my area of expertise,” Polis said. “I’ve been on the board of the Air Force Academy for two years. I’m learning a lot more about defense issues, but I don’t really have an opinion on that yet.”
While expressing skepticism about the chances for federal progress on LGBT issues in this Congress, Polis was optimistic about the prospects for a pro-LGBT bill in his home state of Colorado: a measure that would legalize civil unions.
“It passed the Senate and has the governor’s support, so hopefully it’ll pass the House,” Polis said.
Polis said lawmakers are pursuing civil unions instead of same-sex marriage legislation because no lawmaker introduced a measure to expand marriage in the state to include gay couples.
Obama hasn’t come out in favor of same-sex marriage, although in December he said he’s been “wrestling” with the issue. Many LGBT advocates have been calling on the president to continue his evolution and back marriage equality.
Asked whether support for same-sex marriage from the president would open the door for gay nuptials in Colorado, Polis replied, “I think the president’s journey is similar to the journey of many people here in Colorado. Many people aren’t quite sure what to think on this issue. They’ve come a long way from where they are or were a decade or two ago, and, of course, the younger generation is already there.”
“Just as the president is wrestling with this issue, many mainstream Americans are wrestling with this issue,” Polis added
Evaluating Obama’s work on LGBT issues as a whole, Polis said the president is “doing a great job” and emphasized Obama can’t enact legislation that members of the LGBT community have been pushing for on his own accord.
“Keep in mind that the president can’t initiate legislation,” Polis said. “It has to pass the House and the Senate. But with regard to his executive orders and his legal strategy — not defending [the Defense of Marriage Act] — I applaud his efforts. I think this administration has been working closely with the LGBT community on the issue of equality.”
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.”
-
Opinions5 days agoD.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
-
District of Columbia5 days agoKey lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
-
The White House4 days agoTrump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
-
South Carolina4 days agoMan faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge

