National
Barney, speaking frankly
Retiring congressman on state of LGBT movement, coming out in 1987 and his future plans


Retiring Rep. Barney Frank spoke to the Blade this week about a wide range of topics, including the state of the LGBT movement and his future plans. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who announced last week that he wonāt run for re-election next year, said the LGBT community has seen an āenormousā amount of progress during his more than 30 years in Congress and would achieve close to full equality in 12 years.
āI think we are on the verge of a very complete victory within a dozen years or so,ā he told the Washington Blade in an interview in his office on Tuesday.
āThat is, I think the country is supportive. It gets better generationally,ā he said. āI donāt think people will be allowed to marry in every state, unfortunately, 10 years from now. I think people in those states where a majority of people live will be allowed to marry and will have full federal rights.ā
Frank said he became the first member of Congress to voluntarily disclose he was gay in 1987, six years after taking office in 1981, after he determined staying in the closet was too constraining on his personal life.
āI got there and I thought, OK, well I can be privately out but publicly closeted,ā he said. āBut it didnāt work. I found it very hard to have a satisfying, healthy emotional and physical life.ā
Frank said that during the years he withheld disclosing his sexual orientation, both as a congressman and a member of the Massachusetts State Legislature, he promised himself that he would never hold back on his strong political support for LGBT rights in an effort to conceal his status as a gay person.
āI remember my thought process was, well I canāt be honest about being gay. I wouldnāt win. But it would be despicable for me as a gay man to be any less than fully supportive,ā he said.
In a wide-ranging discussion of his views on how the LGBT movement should push for civil rights legislation in Congress and through the states, Frank expressed in the blunt way he has been known to do that LGBT activists should use the most effective means of moving their agenda, even if that sometimes means making compromises.
He described as āpolitical suicideā the call by some LGBT activists and bloggers for withholding support for President Barack Obama on grounds that Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress didnāt push harder for more LGBT legislative advances, including the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which remains stalled in Congress.
Frank said he has seen important advances in the support for transgender rights in Congress and several states, including Massachusetts, which just passed a transgender non-discrimination bill that includes protections in employment, housing, credit and adds transgender protections to the stateās hate crimes law.
But Frank noted that the bill passed after transgender leaders and their supporters in the legislature agreed to a compromise that eliminated public accommodations protections from the bill. Lawmakers supportive of the bill said they would add public accommodations protections to the law as soon they can line up the votes in the legislature needed to do so.
Frank dismissed as āridiculousā the attacks by some LGBT activists who called the compromise unacceptable and an outrage against the transgender community.
āThat is an example of their political stupidity,ā he said, noting that the compromise bill provides employment and housing protections that otherwise would not have passed if advocates held out for an all-or-nothing bill.
Frank described as “reasonable” a proposalĀ by LGBT advocatesĀ that President ObamaĀ issue an executive order requiring companies that receive federal contracts in the defense and other industries to provide non-discrimination protections for their LGBT employees.
“I think thatās a reasonable thing to keep pushing for,” he said.Ā “There are limits to what you can do. You donāt want the president to overreach from what could be required in legislation. I think thatās worth pushing for if itās carefully done.”
A transcript of the Bladeās interview with Rep. Frank follows. The interview was conducted on Dec. 6, 2011, in Frankās Capitol Hill office.
Washington Blade: To what degree have you seen support for LGBT equality increase in the U.S. Congress since you took office as a congressman in 1981?
Rep. Barney Frank: Oh, enormously. When I first got here, the first vote we had was in 1981 when the House ā as it was able to do then by a one-house vote ā overturned the D.C. Councilās repeal of the [cityās] sodomy law. It was a heavy vote against us. And weāve just made very great progress since then. Itās to the point where now ā and itās unfortunate that itās gotten very partisan. The country has gotten much better in its view on LGBT rights. The Democrats have gotten better ā equal to or ahead of the country. But the Republicans have gotten much worse. So itās now one of the major partisan issues. Itās unfortunate how terrible the Republicans have become. You saw that in āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell,ā for instance, in the House. But in general the expectation is the Democrats in the House will be supportive on most issues, and I think that reflects the country.
Blade: What prompted you to come out as gay in 1987?
Frank: First, my personal life. Iāve known Iāve been gay since I was 13. I lived a very repressed life until then. And then, because I had emotional and physical needs that needed an outlet, I got here and I thought, OK, well I can be privately out but publicly closeted. But it didnāt work. I just found it very hard to have a satisfying, healthy emotional and physical life. So it was primarily my personal life. But it was also the secondary factor that I thought it would be helpful in fighting prejudice. One of the things I realized about talking a lot about gay rights ā and increasingly by then people knew I was gay. I wasnāt out publicly. I realized they did not understand what it was like, what we went through, what the pain was. But thatās because they didnāt know anybody. Itās hard to sympathize with people when you donāt know who they are. You donāt see what it is.
Blade: Unlike other gay public officials who were in the closet, you didnāt seem to hold back in your public support for gay rights.
Frank: It was quite the opposite. I decided to run for office in 1972 ā to run for the state legislature in Massachusetts. And I remember my thought process was, well I canāt be honest about being gay. I wouldnāt win. But it would be despicable for me as a gay man to be any less than fully supportive … There were then two gay groups, a menās group and a womenās group. And they wrote to everybody who was running for the state legislature in 1972. It was just a couple of years after Stonewall. And for the first time you had organized gay political activity. And they said, āWould you introduce legislation to provide legal equality for gay people, which was the term we used then. And I said yes. I was the only one who said yes. So thatās how I became the prime sponsor of the legislation. I was the only one. But I was glad to take on the role. So, yeah, I clearly decided I would not in any way retreat. And I remember the first time I testified on gay rights. I was 32, unmarried. And I thought, well, what are they going to think? And my answer was, oh, the hell with what they think. I was prepared to sacrifice enough not to come out. But I was not prepared to degrade myself by pretending to be anything less than supportive of who I was.
Blade: When you came out in Congress did you sense you were being held back from advancing because of a so-called glass ceiling due to your sexual orientation?
Frank: I think there was one at first. I think, now, yes and no. Certainly it didnāt interfere with my being the chair of a very powerful committee and being, frankly, because of the circumstances, one of the major leaders. In fact I said that on the floor. I remember saying when we were talking about the hate crimes bill, āIām a big shot now but I used to be 15 and I remember what it was like.ā ⦠If I were running for a leadership position it might be a problem in the House. Some of the Democrats come from the few areas left where theyāre afraid. But now we have almost all the Democrats on board. We have a handful that arenāt. So no. And the other ā I assumed it would have been a bar to [running for] the Senate. But in 2004, when we thought John Kerry might get elected president, we had a mock election for the Senate in Massachusetts. Five of us were running ā Congressman Markey, Congressman Lynch, myself, then Congressman Meehan and Martha Coakley, now the attorney general. And we were running and Iāve had people who worked in the other camps say I would have won that race. So if Kerry had been elected president I believe I would have been elected to the Senate in 2004. So I mean other than the presidency and the vice presidency I think thereās probably not one.
Blade: Where does the LGBT movement stand now in its ability to advance legislation?
Frank: Weāve gotten better. I think thereās two good examples of great victories. They didnāt involve demonstrations, they didnāt involve marches. They involved some discretion and some compromising. Deferring to [New York Governor] Andrew Cuomoās leadership politically in the battle for [same-sex] marriage in New York, and he told them how to do it. And then accepting the exclusion of public accommodations from the trans [non-discrimination bill, which passed in November 2011] in Massachusetts.
Blade: The trans bill in Massachusetts became an issue to someā
Frank: An issue to whom?
Blade: Some of the more outspoken trans activists, who say they are outraged because it includes employment, housing and other protections but not public accommodations protections.
Frank: No, I would say ridiculous trans activists who are outraged, who would prefer there be no rights for employment than this. That is an example of their political stupidity. They may be very bright about other things. I donāt see how anybody can see that as a rational argument right now, nor, by the way, do I think it represents five percent of our community. I donāt even think it represents a majority of the transgender people. How can it possibly be ā and by the way, these people donāt know history, because I will tell you that Martin Luther King and the other civil rights leaders would not for a second have hesitated to accept that deal. They were constantly moving toward making things better but those are both examples, I think, of the political maturity of our community ā of knowing how to go about it. And I think as a result we are on the verge ā well, by the way, we did the same thing with āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā We didnāt abolish āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā We didnāt ban statutorily discrimination against us in the military. We banned the requirement that we discriminate. And there was some, āOh, gee, how do you know they maybe will not do it fairly?ā I think we are on the verge of a very complete victory within a dozen years or so. That is, I think the country is supportive. It gets better generationally. I donāt think people will be allowed to marry in every state, unfortunately, 10 years from now. I think people in those states where a majority of people live will be allowed to marry and will have full federal rights.
Blade: Are you concerned about the provision of DOMA ā if itās repealed ā that says the states donāt have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states ā
Frank: That doesnāt mean anything. Iāve said this all along. That doesnāt mean anything at all. The court will disregard that. Quite frankly people donāt understand that. Thatās a matter of interpreting the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will tell Congress, āMind your own business.ā It has nothing to do with you. That is totally meaningless, that section. It doesnāt mean a thing. Congress cannot affect by statute a constitutional interpretation. By the way, the Constitution always was that states did not have to recognize that. When the Supreme Court threw out the law against inter marriage racially it wasnāt based on one state having to recognize another stateās marriage. The assumption was in 1967 that Virginia, which is where the case was brought, didnāt have to recognize a marriage in Europe. So everybody agreed ā an African American and a white person can get married in New York and Virginia can disregard it. It was thrown out on constitutional segregation grounds. So in the first place, thatās been the Constitution anyway. Secondly, if it was, Congress would have nothing to do with it. Itās an entirely meaningless provision.
Blade: Some, like Hillary Clinton when she ran for president in 2008, said her husband signed DOMA because it would act as a safeguard against passing a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Frank: Thatās nonsense. Her husband signed it because he was afraid politically about what would happen if he didnāt sign it. It has nothing to do with a constitutional amendment. He signed it because it was politically necessary to sign it. And I understood that. The Republicans threw it on his lap three months before the election. [Liberal, gay-supportive Senator] Paul Wellstone [D-Minn.] voted for it. He was up for re-election that year and he was afraid of it. It had nothing to do with stopping a constitutional amendment. And the fact is it does not mean anything. And no good lawyer will tell you it has any meaning whatsoever. This is a matter of the Constitution. It would be like if Congress passed a law saying the 14th Amendment doesnāt mean this or that. No, itās none of our business what it means or not. We can decide for ourselves what it means, and I can govern my vote. But whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause compels marriage recognition or not is entirely up to the Supreme Court. And clearly up until now they have said it doesnāt.
Blade: Do you have any predictions of what the Supreme Court might do if the Proposition 8 case gets there?
Frank: I think thatās not a good case. I think the better case is Mary Bonautoās case [the attorney with the LGBT litigation group in Boston, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in court on behalf of a same-sex couple.]
Blade: In your 1992 book, āSpeaking Frankly: Whatās Wrong with the Democrats and How to Fix It,ā you said some liberal Democrats unnecessarily alienated voters by being reluctant to ādemonstrate that liberals are patriotic supporters of the free-enterprise system who think that hard work should be rewarded and violent criminals severely punished.ā Do some of these things still apply today and do they have any relevance to the gay movement?
Frank: Yes, I still believe itās a mistake, for example, to insist that every Democrat be for gun control. Thatās a great loser for us in most of the country. Iāll vote for gun control. But itās a great loser. I also believe it has to do with ā Iāll go back to marriage in New York and the non-discrimination bill in Massachusetts. Yeah, itās very, very relevant still. You have to be smart about it, that you engage in political activity to advance your goals, not to feel morally superior.
Blade: Everybodyās talking about the presidential election. Are the Republican presidential candidates as horrible as a lot of gay activists are saying they are on LGBT issues?
Frank: Yes ā they are. Romney is a total faker, having said he was going to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy and heās moved against us on everything, not just on marriage. And Gingrich was the leader of homophobic stuff when he was here. Gingrich was the man who put the Defense of Marriage Act on the agenda in 1996 when he was the Speaker. I donāt know where Huntsman is, but he is irrelevant. Itās the whole Republican Party. On āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell,ā you saw the overwhelming majority of Republicans vote against the defense bill in the House because it included the repeal of āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā They ordinarily all vote for the defense bill. We did get a couple of votes in the Senate. [Senator] Susan Collinsā [R-Maine] support was very important in that. But in general the Republicans have become a 90 plus percent anti-gay party. By the way, [President George W.] Bush didnāt undo stuff. He wouldnāt do anything good. But Iām not at all confident that a Republican president wonāt reinstate āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā
Blade: Is there a chance that the Congress would block that, even if thereās a Republican-controlled House?
Frank: Well Congress couldnāt reinstate it because they would never get it through the Senate and the president would veto it. But if the Republicans win the presidency they donāt need the Congress. The president could reinstate it by executive order.
Blade: Is it completely settled now that every gay civil rights bill will include gender identity and expression protections or it wonāt be introduced, whether it would be ENDA or another bill?
Frank: I think itās unlikely that it wouldnāt but that doesnāt necessarily mean it will pass. I think youāll see transgender protections included. Weāve made progress on transgender. But my view is the same in that we still have the problem with the situation where people get naked together. But short of that, I think the next time we have a Democratic House, Senate and president ā remember, we can only pass pro-LGBT legislation when we have a Democratic House, Senate and president. Weāve only had that twice since Jimmy Carter left officeātwo years under Bill Clinton and two years under Barack Obama. Thatās the exception, not the norm. So the next time we get a Democratic House, Senate and president weāll be able to pass a transgender-inclusive ENDA. But like the Massachusetts law, probably not allowing full and unrestricted access to locker and shower rooms
Blade: We get emails and calls from some activists saying the Democrats should have been held to a higher standard, that they should have done more on LGBT legislation during the period that they did have the House and Senate and the presidency under Obama.
Frank: Which was?
Blade: Among other things, ENDA.
Frank: We had a transgender inclusive hate crimes bill and a repeal of āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā I think thatās pretty good. I wish we had done ENDA. But part of the problem was the community refused to accept the kind of compromise that Massachusetts did. If we had that ā one of the things the [House] leadership was worried about was ⦠what are we going to pass the bill for if some of the people who are going to be the beneficiaries are attacking us? So whatās the point of that? People are holding us to a higher standard? Whose standard? Where did you become the standard setter? What we got, as I said, was the president coming out against DOMA and very importantly elevating the level of scrutiny thatās needed for ending discrimination. And we got hate crimes through and we got āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tellā repealed. I think thatās pretty good.
Blade: Many in the community agree with that assessment.
Frank: In general, the people who are complaining ā well, whatās their remedy? Theyāre complaining, what do they want, sympathy? If theyāre saying they wish we had more, I do too. Are they saying thatās a reason not to be supporting Barack Obama? Thatās political suicide. The next president will probably appoint another Supreme Court justice or two. I donāt see how people can say, oh, we care about the lawsuit for Prop 8, we care about the DOMA lawsuit but letās make sure that a homophobe will appoint the next Supreme Court justice.
Blade: Itās hard to argue with that.
Frank: Well you raised it.
Blade: Some bloggers and activists have raised it.
Frank: And the answer is that it is suicidal and dumb and self-defeating. Plus, you focus much too much on this. They are a very small percentage of our community and I think thatās a tendency, whether youāre in the media or whether they blog. That is a very small percentage of the community. Do you think most transgender people ā Diego would know better than you or I ā What do most transgender people in Massachusetts think about the bill?
Diego Sanchez [Frankās legislative assistant and longtime transgender advocate]: They support it.
Frank: OK.
Blade: A similar situation occurred this year in Maryland when most transgender leaders, including veteran transgender activist Dana Beyer, agreed to a compromise transgender non-discrimination bill that didnāt include public accommodations protections. Beyer was denounced by other trans activists for accepting the compromise.
Frank: Stop paying so much attention to a handful of people with terrible political judgment who are acting out emotionally. Theyāre only important to you, to be honest. Theyāre not important me. Theyāre not important to anyone in the Maryland Legislature.
Blade: What do you think about the possibility of an executive order by President Obama to require defense contractors or any private companies getting government contracts to have a non-discrimination policy for their LGBT employees?
Frank: I think thatās a reasonable thing to keep pushing for. There are limits to what you can do. You donāt want the president to overreach from what could be required in legislation. I think thatās worth pushing for if itās carefully done.
Blade: To issue that executive order?
Frank: For contractors, yeah, using race as a model. The problem we do have is this. Racial discrimination is embodied in the Constitution and weāre not. So there is more power where race is concerned.
Blade: In terms of your own plans, can you say a little about what you plan to do when you leave Congress?
Frank: Iām going to teach, lecture for money, and write.
Blade: And did you say you donāt plan to become a lobbyist?
Frank: Oh, absolutely not. Now I will still be a supporter and an advocate, but I wonāt lobby for money. I will continue to work on LGBT issues but not as a lobbyist for money.
Blade: Would you consider going on the board of one of the prominent national gay groups?
Frank: No, I donāt want to go to any more meetings and vote any more. Iāll do what I can do but I donāt want to go on a board. Iām just looking for freedom from that kind of responsibility. But I will continue to be an advocate and strategist.
Blade: Will you consider testifying on LGBT issues before ā
Frank: Remember that for the year 2013 I will be under an ethics one-year pause. But I will be picking up again in 2014.
Blade: Thatās an ethics requirement on the Hill?
Frank: One year ā I canāt talk to my colleagues for a year about business.
Blade: We just saw a photo of you with your partner James Ready at a White House holiday party this week. Youāve been taking your partner to functions for quite a while. Has that caused any complications or negative political repercussions?
Frank: I read a book that was very important by a man named Charles Hamilton. It was a biography of Adam Clayton Powell. When Adam Clayton Powell got elected to Congress, while he was the third African American, he was the first to be self-respecting. The two before him had accepted segregation in the Congress. When Adam Powell got here, I think it was 1943, he was not allowed to use the House restaurant. He was told he couldnāt use either the restaurant or the swimming pool. He said āScrew you,ā and he did it. And what he then did, and this is what my view was. I should not do anything just to make a point. But I shouldnāt not do something because somebody else was trying to make a point. So I have insisted with the three partners Iāve had, but particularly with Jimmy Ready, we do everything everybody else does. He goes to the spousesā lunches. We travel together. We do everything everybody else does. Not to make a point but because thatās what we want to do and I think we have come a long way in acceptance. I spoke earlier this year at the Bank of America in New York to a meeting of a couple of hundred LGBT people who are in the financial services industry, many of them younger. And Jimmy and I were there and Jimmy and I talked to them. And a couple of them, a number of them, said, boy, it really means a lot to us because youāre working in this financial industry, itās somewhat conservative, can I put a picture of my girlfriend up on the desk? Thatās what a woman said. I said, well, if the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee can bring his partner there, sure. And thereās also another reason. Itās a little easier for them to think of us other than this abstract embodiment of rights. I want them to think of us as flesh-and-blood people who love each other and are physical with each other.
Blade: In the course of your role as chairman of the Financial Services Committee, you were dealing with nationās leading financial and corporate leaders. Did you sense any attempt by these people to take advantage of you because you were gay?
Frank: No, they didnāt dare. I donāt think most of them wanted to be. But early on, Jimmy and I went to in 2007 or 2008 into Manhattan. We had a series of meetings and Tim Geithner was then president of the New York Federal Reserve. And Jimmy went up to take a nap on Tim Geithnerās couch in his office while I had a meeting with him. But at the time, some guy said the Fed doesnāt yet have an affinity group for gay people. So we fixed that up that day. No, Iāve never sensed any problem.
And Hank Paulson, the then Secretary of the Treasury, to his credit, in his book, in the index, you can find Jimmyās name. Weāve been out to dinner with him and his wife a couple of times. He and I get along very well. He said at one point the negotiations were breaking down, he was worried. And he knew that if he talked to me we could make a deal. And so he sent his two top guys to find me. He said they went looking for Congressman Frank and they found him on the third floor of the Capitol having dinner with his partner Jim Ready, which was just a gratuitous nice reference. But Iāll also tell you what I said. We had the [House Democratic] caucus [meeting] on hate crimes in 2008 when Judy Shepard [mother of Matthew Shepard, who was murdered in an anti-gay hate crime]. And they asked me about some of the African Americans who were being told by ministers that if we passed a hate crimes bill they would be criminally liable if they said homosexuality was against the Bible, which, of course, is nonsense. So I said let me address this because this has nothing to do with free speech. Itās only a crime if you hit somebody and harm somebody when you commit a crime. So I said let me put it this way. If this bill became law tomorrow it would still be entirely legal to call me a fag. I just wouldnāt recommend it if you were in the banking business. And that was my way of getting it across to my colleagues.
Blade: Is there anything else youād like to bring up?
Frank: Well thereās one last thing. I think weāre winning. And the public opinion is on our side. But some people say if youāre winning you can take it easy. I say no. When you read military history they say sometimes military leaders make a mistake that they ease up at the point where theyāre winning. Thatās when you crack down. Thatās when youāve got them on the run. You have to continue to press, because I think weāre on the verge of winning this fight.
Blade: The opponents seem to be saying now, in response to the marriage fight, that society will be seriously harmed if the gay side prevails and gays are allowed to marry. How do you address that?
Frank: And the mainstream media always lets them get away with it. Theyāre always making these stupid predictions. They never come through. By the way, I give credit to the commandant of the Marine Corps, General [James] Amos, who just admitted that his gloom and doom predictions of six months ago arenāt true. Remember, heās the guy who opposed repeal of āDonāt Ask, Donāt Tell.ā He said he was wrong. It was a non-event. But I think we ought to do a better job on that, to get the stupidities that theyāve predicted and show that they werenāt true. Iāve been doing this for a long time. Iāve heard those same predictions about the Equal Rights Amendment for women, about protecting people with disabilities, about gay rights, about race. Any time you talk discrimination they say, well, I donāt dislike those people but itās going to be chaotic. And it never is. The fact is, unfortunately, given the nature of things, anti-discrimination laws are hard to enforce. The bigots are sophisticated. Itās hard to catch them.
Pennsylvania
Gay journalist murdered inside Philadelphia home
Josh Kruger’s death has left city ‘shocked and saddened’

An openly gay journalist was shot to death in his Point Breeze neighborhood home in the 2300 block of Watkins Street in South Philadelphia early Monday morning.
According to Officer Shawn Ritchie, a spokesperson for the Philadelphia Police Department, 39-year-old Josh Kruger was shot at about 1:30 a.m. and collapsed in the street after seeking help. Kruger was transported to Penn Presbyterian Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 2:13 a.m.
Police said that Kruger was shot seven times throughout the chest and abdomen and that no weapons were recovered nor have any arrests been made. Homicides investigators noted that there was no sign of forced entry and the motive remains unclear.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner said in a statement:
“Josh Kruger lifted up the most vulnerable and stigmatized people in our communities ā particularly unhoused people living with addiction. As an openly queer writer who wrote about his own journey surviving substance use disorder and homelessness, it was encouraging to see Josh join the Kenney administration as a spokesperson for the Office of Homeless Services.
Josh deserved to write the ending of his personal story. As with all homicides, we will be in close contact with the Philadelphia police as they work to identify the person or persons responsible so that they can be held to account in a court of law. I extend my deepest condolences to Joshās loved ones and to all those mourning this loss.ā
WHYY reported Kruger had written extensively with bylines in multiple publications, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Magazine, the Philadelphia Citizen, WHYY, and Billy Penn.
CBS News reported that Kruger overcame homelessness and addiction to work for five years in city government, handling Mayor Jim Kenney’s social media and serving as the communications director for the city’s Office of Homeless Services.
He left city government in 2021 to return to journalism, according to his website.
“He was more than just a journalist,” Kendall Stephens, who was a friend and neighbor of Kruger’s, told CBS News. “He was more than just a community member. He was somebody that fought that great fight so many of us are not able to fight that fight because we’re too busy sheltered in our own homes wondering if someone is going to knock down our doors and kill us the same way they killed him. The same way they tried to kill me. And we’re tired of it.”
Kenney said in a statement that he is “shocked and saddened” by Kruger’s death.
“He cared deeply about our city and its residents, which was evident in his public service and writing. Our administration was fortunate to call him a colleague, and our prayers are with everyone who knew him.”
Shocked and saddened by Josh Krugerās death. He cared deeply about our city and its residents, which was evident in his public service and writing.
— Mayor Jim Kenney (@PhillyMayor) October 2, 2023
Our administration was fortunate to call him a colleague, and our prayers are with everyone who knew him. https://t.co/dnRxQ0Ic3W
The District Attorneyās LGBTQ+ Advisory Committee issued the following statement:
āMany of us knew Josh Kruger as a comrade who never stopped advocating for queer Philadelphians living on the margins of society. His struggles mirrored so many of ours ā from community rejection, to homelessness, to addiction, to living with HIV, to poverty ā and his recovery, survival, and successes showed whatās possible when politicians and elected leaders reject bigotry and work affirmatively to uplift all people. Even while Josh worked for the mayor, he never stopped speaking out against police violence, politicized attacks on trans and queer people, or the societal discarding of homeless and addicted Philadelphians.
We are devastated that Joshās life was ended so violently. We urge anyone who has information that could lead to an arrest and prosecution for Joshās murder to contact the Philadelphia Police or the DAās Office directly. LGBTQ+ Philadelphians experience violence of all kinds every day; few people used their platforms to remind powerful people in government of that reality as effectively as Josh Kruger did. Josh and the communities he advocated for every day of his life deserve nothing less than justice and accountability for this outrageous crime.ā
U.S. Federal Courts
Lesbian mother from El Salvador released from ICE custody
Jessica Barahona-Martinez arrested on June 26, 2017

A federal judge last week ordered the release of a lesbian mother from El Salvador who had been in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody since June 2017.
Jessica Patricia Barahona-Martinez and her three children entered the U.S. on May 31, 2016. A court filing notes she fled “persecution she faced in El Salvador as a lesbian, and because the government had falsely identified her as a gang member.ā
Barahona-Martinez lived with her sister and other relatives in Woodbridge, Va., until ICE arrested and detained her on June 26, 2017. She was housed at two ICE detention centers in Virginia until her transfer to the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center, a privately-run facility the GEO Group, a Florida-based company, operates in Basile, La., in October 2020.
An immigration judge in November 2019 granted Barahona-Martinez asylum for the second time. The government appealed the decision and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the Justice Department oversees, ruled in their favor.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Louisiana last month filed a writ for habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana’s Lafayette Division that asked for Barahona-Martinez’s release. U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty on Sept. 27 ruled in her favor.
“Petitioner (Barahona-Martinez) ultimately argues that her prolonged detention violates due process; she moves that this court issues a temporary restraining order, requests release, a bond hearing, an expedited hearing and costs and attorney fees,” wrote Doughty.
“This court finds that petitioner has plausibly alleged her prolonged detention violates due process,” added Doughty.
An ACLU spokesperson on Monday told the Blade that ICE has released Barahona-Martinez and she is once again in Virginia with her children and sister.
State Department
State Department hosts intersex activists from around the world
Group met with policy makers, health officials, NGOs

The State Department last week hosted five intersex activists from around the world.
Kimberly Zieselman, a prominent intersex activist who advises Jessica Stern, the special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights abroad, brought the activists to D.C.
⢠Morgan Carpenter, co-founder and executive director of Intersex Human Rights Australia
⢠Natasha Jiménez, an intersex activist from Costa Rica who is the general coordinator of Mulabi, the Latin American Space for Sexualities and Rights
⢠Julius Kaggwa, founder of the Support Initiative for People with Atypical Sex Development Uganda
⢠Magda Rakita, co-founder and executive director of Fujdacja Interakcja in Poland and co-founder of Interconnected UK
⢠Esan Regmi, co-founder and executive director of the Campaign for Change in Nepal.
Special U.S. Envoy for Global Youth Issues Abby Finkenauer and Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine are among the officials with whom the activists met.
Zieselman told the Washington Blade on Sept. 21 the activists offered State Department officials an “intersex 101” overview during a virtual briefing.
More than 60 Save the Children staffers from around the world participated in another virtual briefing. Zieselman noted the activists also met with Stern, U.N. and Organization of American States officials, funders and NGO representatives while in D.C.
“The people we met were genuinely interested,” Rakita told the Blade.
Stern in an exclusive statement to the Blade said “the visiting intersex activists clearly had an impact here at State, sharing their expertise and lived experience highlighting the urgency to end human rights abuses, including those involving harmful medical practices against intersex persons globally.” Andrew Gleason, senior director for gender equality and social justice at Save the Children US, in a LinkedIn post he wrote after attending his organization’s meeting with the activists echoed Stern.
“There are many learnings to recount from todayās discussion, but one thing is clear, this is unequivocally a child rights issue, and one that demands attention and action at the intersection of LGBTQI+ rights, reproductive rights and justice, disability justice and more,” wrote Gleason. “Gratitude to the panelists for sharing such poignant testimonies and providing insights into what organizations like ours can do to contribute to the broader intersex movement; and thank you to Kimberly for your leadership and bringing this group together.”
The activists’ trip to D.C. coincided with efforts to end so-called sex “normalization” surgeries on intersex children.
Greek lawmakers in July passed a law that bans such procedures on children under 15 unless they offer their consent or a court allows them to happen. Doctors who violate the statute face fines and prison.
Germany Iceland, Malta, Portugal and Spain have also enacted laws that seek to protect intersex youth.
A law that grants equal rights and legal recognition to intersex people in Kenya took effect in July 2022. Lawmakers in the Australian Capital Territory earlier this year passed the Variation in Sex Characteristics (Restricted Medical Treatment) Bill 2023.
Intersex Human Rights Australia notes the law implements “mechanisms to regulate non-urgent medical care to encourage child participation in medical decisions, establish groundbreaking oversight mechanisms and provide transparency on medical practices and decision making.” It further points out the statute “will criminalize some deferrable procedures that permanently alter the sex characteristics of children” and provides “funding for necessary psychosocial supports for families and children.”
“It’s amazing,” Carpenter told the Blade when discussing the law and resistance to it. “It’s not perfect. There was some big gaps, but physicians are resisting every step of the way.”
The State Department in April 2022 began to issue passports with an “X” gender marker.
Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as non-binary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an āXā gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.
-
Congress4 days ago
House passes Boebert’s amendment targeting LGBTQ workers at USDA
-
State Department3 days ago
State Department hosts intersex activists from around the world
-
Local4 days ago
Comings & Goings
-
Virginia3 days ago
Virginia Beach high school students stage walkouts to support transgender rights