News
Praise, criticism as HRC heads into new era
Some laud Solmonese for state focus, others say marriage crowding out other priorities
HRC President Joe Solmonese will step down at the end of March.(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The Human Rights Campaign’s search for a new president began in full force on Nov. 22 when an executive recruiting firm retained by the HRC board issued an eight-page job announcement describing the qualifications and experience sought for the next leader of the nation’s largest LGBT advocacy group.
The release of the job announcement, which is posted on the HRC website, followed an Oct. 3 announcement by HRC that its board had retained Russell Reynolds Associates, a nationally known executive recruitment firm, to assist the board in its search for the replacement of Joe Solmonese.
Solmonese has held the post of president and CEO of HRC and the HRC Foundation since 2005. He announced in August that he would step down from his position when his current contract expires on March 30, 2012.
“The entire HRC board understands the importance of this search to our community, to our continued progress as a movement and to our organization,” said HRC Board Co-Chair Rebecca Tillet.
“That’s why we will run a process that is inclusive and respects the importance of diversity in the candidate pool,” said Andy Linsky, co-chair of the board of the HRC Foundation, HRC’s research and educational arm.
Since Solmonese announced he was stepping down, LGBT activists have been debating HRC’s role in the movement its effectiveness during Solmonese’s tenure.
In an informal survey of LGBT activists in Washington and across the country over the past week, the Blade has found that most believe HRC has done a good job of advocating for LGBT equality on the federal and state level. Leaders of at least seven state and local LGBT organizations said HRC worked cooperatively with their respective groups on joint projects.
Others, including two nationally recognized transgender rights advocates, expressed concern that HRC – as well as other national LGBT organizations – have devoted too much of their time and resources to same-sex marriage efforts at the expense of pushing for non-discrimination laws on the federal, state and local levels. Those expressing this position say non-discrimination laws would have a beneficial impact on far more LGBT people than laws seeking to legalize same-sex marriage.
While they don’t object to spending resources on marriage equality, those expressing this view say HRC and other national LGBT groups are devoting far too little attention to non-discrimination measures, including the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA, a bill pending in Congress that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
“I hope the HRC board of directors thinks about this,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. “They do some very great things. But they are moving in the direction of marriage being their primary focus,” she said.
Keisling’s view was echoed by Maryland transgender advocate Dana Beyer, a former HRC board member, who said HRC appears to be evolving into a “marriage all the time” organization.
HRC officials have said it is devoting its resources to a wide range of programs and projects in addition to marriage equality. They say many of the projects are aimed at changing the minds of voters and lawmakers in an effort to line up the small number of additional votes in the U.S. House and Senate needed to pass ENDA.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the gay lawmaker and lead sponsor of ENDA in the House, has said the bill has no chance of passing until Democrats regain control of the House. Frank says Republican House leaders won’t allow the bill to come up for a vote, even though a sizable number of House Republicans are expected to vote for ENDA.
HRC supporters acknowledge that many in the LGBT community have questioned HRC’s capabilities and effectiveness, often fueled by HRC critics who say the group hasn’t been able to secure passage of ENDA. Some critics say HRC should have done more 2009 and 2010, when Democrats controlled the House and Senate with a Democratic president in the White House.
Arlington, Va., gay activist Bob Mialovich, an HRC member and contributor who retired recently as a federal government official, called such criticism unfair.
“I can understand peoples’ frustration, but the reality is we don’t have a majority of support in Congress to pass the bills we need to pass,” he said. “If you are not directly involved, you may not be aware of what HRC is doing. What I know is they are doing a lot.”
HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz has said HRC played a key role, along with other gay advocacy groups, in lobbying for passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which authorizes the federal government to prosecute hate crimes targeting LGBT people. Sainz also points to the success HRC and its partner groups have had in lobbying for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
He said HRC worked closely with other groups to facilitate the Obama administration’s issuance of a large number of regulatory changes and federal agency rules that ban discrimination against LGBT people in healthcare, housing and other areas.
In addition to lobbying Congress, the White House and state and local governments on LGBT supportive bills and policies, and its election-related work on behalf of LGBT supportive candidates, HRC supporters point to a wide range of projects carried out by the HRC Foundation. Among them is the HRC Corporate Equality Index, which rates the nation’s Fortune 500 companies on whether their internal personnel policies ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
In its latest criteria for companies to obtain HRC’s highest rating in the Corporate Equality Index, the group raised the bar by calling for companies to include gender reassignment surgery for transgender employees in the companies’ health insurance plans. A large number of them have agreed to do so.
Other projects include a Healthcare Equality Index, which rates hospitals and other healthcare facilities on their treatment of LGBT people; a Welcoming Schools Program, that pushes for anti-bullying and other LGBT-supportive school policies; an All Children-All Families project that trains and sensitizes adoption agencies on LGBT families; and a Religion and Faith Program, which encourages LGBT-supportive clergy to speak out on LGBT issues, including same-sex marriage efforts.
Another program trains LGBT students enrolled in the nation’s historically black colleges to become student leaders in an effort to advance LGBT equality on their campuses.
HRC supporters also point to the group’s aggressive press and communications operation, which responds quickly and on a 24-hour basis to breaking developments by providing the media with statements and information on a wide range of issues, including responses to anti-LGBT groups or public officials.
The group’s 990 IRS finance report for 2010, the most recent one filed, shows that HRC and the HRC Foundation had a combined income of $39.8 million for the fiscal year running from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
With a staff of 150 full-time employees, the group’s revenue of close to $40 million makes HRC the largest national LGBT advocacy group. The group also owns its own office building in downtown Washington, an investment HRC officials and supporters have said helps the group advance its mission.
The building, among other things, houses a community event space that HRC calls the Equality Center, which often is used by local D.C. area LGBT organizations. The building includes a multimedia production facility. HRC says the building also generates income through the renting of surplus office space to outside groups and firms. The D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue has assessed the value of the building for 2012 at $16.6 million, an increase from its 2011 assessed value of $14.4 million.
‘Surplus of ill will’
Despite its income and broad range of programs, some critics say HRC has worked at cross purposes with other national and state LGBT organizations. In a development that created a stir among some activists, veteran gay rights advocate Matt Foreman, the former executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and former head of New York’s statewide LGBT group Empire State Pride Agenda, wrote a strongly worded critique of HRC that was published last month in two widely read LGBT blogs.
“The reality is that we are two separate movements: the Human Rights Campaign and everyone else,” Foreman wrote. He said that while HRC and its leaders and staff have accomplished many important things, “the cause of LGBT equality has suffered because of a deficit of trust and a surplus of ill will between HRC and the rest of the movement.”
Foreman did not respond to a call from the Blade seeking to discuss further his criticism of HRC.
Leaders of statewide LGBT advocacy groups contacted by the Blade in California, Illinois, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania and D.C. each said they have an amicable working relationship with HRC. Although they declined to comment directly on Foreman’s views about HRC, the officials said it was not uncommon for LGBT advocates to disagree over strategy and tactics but that the groups they work with – including HRC – have always worked through the disagreements.
Rebecca Isaacs, the recently named executive director of the Equality Federation, a national group that represents LGBT advocacy organizations in the states, has been involved in LGBT movement groups on the national level since the 1980s, including her role as political director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
“HRC is part of the world of people with expertise on a lot of things,” Isaacs said, adding that Equality Federation is working with HRC on a number important issues occurring in the states. “We are dealing with 50 states, each with different people doing different things. My question is who wants to help? I’m not in any camp.”
Bil Browning, publisher of the Bilerico Project, an LGBT blog that published Foreman’s commentary criticizing HRC, said he was among HRC’s strongest critics in past years. But he said he has seen what he considers a major change for the better by HRC under Solmonese’s leadership.
Among other things, Browning said Solmonese greatly improved HRC’s relations with state LGBT organizations and significantly boosted HRC support for state and local initiatives. He said he saw this first hand as one of the leaders of the state LGBT group in Indiana, where Browning lived before moving to D.C.
According to Browning, HRC provided him with important support when he coordinated a successful effort to pass a non-discrimination ordinance in Indianapolis that includes protections for LGBT people.
“And as Indiana was fighting its marriage amendment battle, who was one of the first groups to stand up and say do you need cash, do you need polling, what do you need? It was HRC,” Browning said.
“I have to admit that for all my quibbles with HRC and some of the various stuff that they’ve done over the years, LGBT rights wouldn’t be as far as it is in Indiana without them,” he said.
Veteran gay Democratic activist Peter Rosenstein of D.C. was among some activists who viewed Foreman’s criticism as reflecting disagreements within the LGBT movement over tactics and strategy.
“While I agree with some of what Matt Foreman writes I think he needs to take some personal responsibility for the movement not being in sync,” said Rosenstein. “As he says, he had the opportunity to lead a national organization and it sounds like he still wants all things his way. I have often criticized HRC and I agree they should be more open and work more closely with the larger LGBT community. My hope is that they first do a truly open and wide ranging search for a replacement for Joe Solmonese.”
Longtime D.C. gay and Ward 8 community activist Phil Pannell, who has advocated for LGBT support within the city’s African-American community, said he’s been an HRC member for many years and thinks HRC does good work on the local and national level.
“I have seen HRC reach out the black community,” he said.
Rick Rosendall, vice president of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C., said he is troubled over what he called “internecine sniping” over HRC in the LGBT movement.
“The reality is that all LGBT activists and donors do not share the same goals, priorities and approaches.” He said GLAA and HRC “haven’t always seen eye to eye, but we have had a mutually respectful and productive relationship for many years.”
He added, “HRC does a lot of useful things, but if someone doesn’t like them, there are plenty of other groups to support…. HRC has a large and loyal donor base, and its headquarters is not going to crumble because of one more harsh op-ed. Any movement as diverse as ours is inherently messy. Deal with it, folks.”
Ukraine
Ukrainian MPs advance new Civil Code without protections for same-sex couples
Advocacy groups say proposal would ‘contradict European standards’
Ukrainian lawmakers have advanced a proposed new Civil Code that does not contain legal protections for same-sex couples.
The Kyiv Independent reported the proposal passed on its first reading on April 28 by a 254-2 vote margin.
The newspaper notes more than two dozen advocacy groups in a statement said some of the proposed Civil Code’s provisions “contradict European standards” and “violate Ukraine’s commitments under its EU accession process.”
“The most worrying provisions are those that make it impossible for a court to recognize the existence of a family relationship between people of the same sex,” the statement reads. “This overturns the already established case law on this issue, and closes the only legal avenue that allows partners to somehow protect their rights in individual cases.”
“Moreover, the draft completely ignores the obligations that Ukraine should have already fulfilled as part of its accession to the EU, as it lacks provisions that would allow people of the same sex to register their relationships,” it adds.
“The provisions also stipulate that all marriages concluded by people who have changed their gender automatically become invalid,” the statement further notes. “This is not just stagnation in the field of human rights or lack of progress on the path to European integration, but an actual setback in the legal sphere.”
Olena Shevchenko, chair of Insight, a Ukrainian LGBTQ advocacy group, in an April 28 Facebook post said the new Civil Code “is a step back on upholding the rights of women and the LGBT+ community in Ukraine.”
The Ukrainian constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2022 publicly backed civil partnerships for same-sex couples.
The Ukrainian Supreme Court on Feb. 25 recognized Zoryan Kis and Tymur Levchuk — a gay couple who has lived together since 2013 and married in the U.S. in 2021 — as a family. Ukraine the day before marked four years since Russia began its war against the country.
New York
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
Cayman Islands native taken into custody before green card interview
Following nearly half a year in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, Allan Marrero has been released and is back home with his husband in New York.
Marrero spent 150 days in ICE custody, held in multiple detention centers across the U.S. after missing an immigration court hearing while in a rehabilitation program for alcohol addiction — a circumstance widely considered “good cause” for failing to appear.
The Washington Blade first reported on Marrero’s case in March after the Cayman Islands native was detained by ICE officers during what was supposed to be a routine marriage-based green card interview at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City.
Marrero had been married to his husband, Matthew Marrero, for two years at the time of the interview. But almost immediately, the experience turned hostile.
The Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, a minister at Middle Church in Manhattan who accompanied the couple to provide spiritual support, later described the process as “dehumanizing” and “barbaric.”
During the interview, it became clear the couple was facing an uphill battle. At one point, when asked how they met, Matthew Marrero instinctively looked over at his husband and was “snapped at” and told not to look at him. As the interview continued, the outlook only grew more grim.
Unaware that he had a prior removal order tied to the missed court date while he was in rehab, Allan Marrero was detained on the spot.
Over the following months, Allan Marrero was transferred through multiple detention facilities, including centers in Arizona and Texas, the Everglades Detention Facility — also known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” which has been described as having “unsanitary inadequate conditions” — and ultimately a detention center in Mississippi.
While in custody, Allan Marrero was denied access to prescription medication and, according to advocates, was psychologically pressured by ICE agents to self-deport rather than remain detained while his legal case proceeded.
Although a judge later reopened his case and granted bond after Allan Marrero provided proof that he had been in rehab — a valid medical reason for missing his court date — ICE used procedural mechanisms to keep him detained. A separate judge later issued a ruling denying relief, leaving Allan Marrero in custody.
On the outside, Matthew Marrero said his life felt as though it had been put on pause so ICE could meet enforcement quotas.
“[It feels like] somebody came in and kidnapped someone close to you and took away all of your control and power,” Matthew Marrero told the Blade on March 7. “You shouldn’t be able to have this much control over somebody’s life, especially if they are trying to do the right thing … You’re not going after criminals, you’re not going after the worst of the worst. You’re trying to fill a quota.”
Alexandra Rizio, Allan Marrero’s attorney with Make the Road New York, a progressive grassroots immigrant-led organization, told the Blade that “there seems to be an underlying element of cruelty baked into not only this administration, but everything.”
“It didn’t have to go down that way,” Rizio continued. “If someone goes in for a green card interview and their marriage interview, and they learn that they have a removal order, what the USCIS officer could have done is say, ‘Look, you have a removal order in your name. You need to go hire an attorney right away to get this taken care of. I can’t adjudicate your green card…’ And if you hire a lawyer, you know, you might be able to get it straightened out. Of course, that’s not what happened. And so ICE, which was in the building, were called and they did arrest Allan.”
The Marreros are scheduled to hold a press conference on Tuesday at Middle Church, where Allan Marrero will speak publicly for the first time about his detention.
For additional information on the press conference please visit middlechurch.org.
Commentary
How do you vote a child out of their future?
Students reportedly expelled from Eswatini schools over alleged same-sex relationships
There is something deeply unsettling about a society that turns a child’s future into a public referendum. In Eswatini, there were reports that students were expelled from school over alleged same-sex relationships, and that parents were invited to vote on whether those children should remain, forcing us to confront a difficult question on when did education stop being a right and become a favor granted by collective approval? Because this is a non-neutral vote.
A vote reflects power, prejudice and personal beliefs, which are often linked to tradition, culture, politics and religion. It is shaped by fear, by stigma, by long-standing narratives about morality and belonging. To ask parents, many of whom may already hold hostile views about LGBTIQ+ people, to decide the fate of children is not consultation. It is deferring the responsibility and repercussion. It is placing the lives of young people in the hands of those most likely to deny them protection.
And where is the law in all of this?
The Kingdom of Eswatini is not operating in a vacuum. It has a constitution that guarantees the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, including equality before the law, equal protection of the laws, and the right to dignity. The constitution further goes on to protect the rights of the child, including that a child shall not be subjected to abuse, torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
The Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 extends the constitution and international human rights instruments, standards and protocols on the protection, welfare, care and maintenance of children in Eswatini. The Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 promotes nondiscrimination of any child in Eswatini and says that every child must have psychosocial and mental well-being and be protected from any form of harm. The acts of this very instance place the six students prone to harm and violence. The expulsion goes against one of the mandates of this act, which stipulates that access to education is fundamental to development, therefore, taking students out of school and denying them education contradicts the law.
Eswatini is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. These are not just commitments made to make our governments look good and appeasing. They are obligations. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear regarding all actions concerning children. The best interests of the child MUST be a primary consideration and NOT secondary one. According to the CRC, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” It is not something to be weighed against public discomfort and popularity.
The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child reinforces this, grounding rights in non-discrimination (Article 3), privacy (Article 10) and protection from all forms of torture (Article 16). Access to education (Article 11) within these frameworks is not conditional but is a foundational right. It is not something that can be taken away because a child is perceived as falling outside social norms and threatening the moral fabric of society. It is a foundational right and determines one’s ability to participate in civic actions with dignity.
So again, where is the law when children are being expelled?
It is tempting to say the law is silent but that would be too generous. The law is not silent rather, it is being ignored and bypassed in favor of systems of decision-making that make those in power comfortable. When schools and their leadership defer to parental votes rather than legal standards, they are not acting neutrally. Expelling a child from school because of allegations is not a decision to be taken lightly. It disrupts education and limits future opportunities and for children already navigating identity and social pressure, this kind of exclusion can have profound psychological effects. It isolates them. It marks them for potential harm. Imagine being a child whose future is discussed in a room where people debate your worth. That is exposure. That is harm. There is a tendency to justify these actions in the language of culture, tradition, religion and protecting social cohesion. But culture is not static and the practice of Ubuntu values is not an excuse to violate rights. If anything, the principle of Ubuntu demands the opposite of what is happening here.
Ubuntu is not about conformity. It is about recognition and is the understanding that our humanity is bound up in one another. That we are diminished when others are excluded. That care, dignity, respect and compassion are not optional extras but central to how we exist together. Where, then, is Ubuntu in a school where some children are deemed unworthy of access to education?
Why are those entrusted with protecting children are failing to do so?
There is a very loud contradiction at play. On one hand, there is a claim to shared values and to the importance of community. On the other hand, there is a willingness to isolate and exclude those who do not fit within the narrow definition of what is acceptable. You cannot have both. A community that thrives on exclusion is neither cohesive nor safe.
It is worth asking why these decisions are being made in this way. Why not follow the established legal processes? Why not ensure that any disciplinary action within schools aligns with national and international obligations? Why introduce a vote at all? The answer is uncomfortable and lies in legitimacy and accountability. A vote creates the appearance of a collective agreement. But again, I reiterate, it distributes responsibility across many hands, making it hard to hold anyone accountable. It allows the school leadership to say “lesi sincumo sebantfu”(“This is what the community decided, not me”) rather than confronting their own role in human rights violations. If the law is clear and rights, responsibilities and obligations are established, then the question is not what the community feels. The question is why those entrusted with protecting children are failing to do so.
There is also a deeper issue here about whose rights are seen as negotiable. When we talk about children, we often speak of care, of understanding, of protection and safeguarding them because they are the future. But that language becomes selective when it intersects with sexuality, particularly when it involves LGBTIQ+ identities. Suddenly, care, understanding, protection, and safeguarding give way to punishment.
Easy decisions are not always just ones.
If the kingdom is serious about its commitments under its constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, then those commitments must be visible in practice, not just in policy documents. Rather, they must guide decision-making in schools and in communities. That means recognizing that a child’s right to education cannot be overridden by a show of hands. It means ensuring that schools remain spaces of inclusion rather than sites of moral policing. It means holding leaders and institutions accountable when they fail to protect those in their care.
Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a human rights activist.
A reign defined by commitment and human impact
Ukrainian MPs advance new Civil Code without protections for same-sex couples
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
How do you vote a child out of their future?
Under new extremism laws, LGBTQ Russians must fight to survive
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
Bill seeks to block global gag rule expansion
New Zealand blood donation rules shift
