National
N.J. lawmakers introduce same-sex marriage bill
9 Dem members of congressional delegation urge passage
One day before the New Jersey Legislature is sworn in and Gov. Chris Christie delivers his State of the State address, leaders of the state Senate and Assembly have announced that they are not only introducing but fast-tracking a bill designed to offer marriage rights to same-sex couples in that state.
The House and Senate bills (respectively numbered A. 1 and S. 1) are expected to be taken up early this year. According to same-sex marriage advocacy organization, Freedom to Marry, “the numbering of the bills reflects the importance which the legislative leaders are giving to the effort.”
The legislative leaders who were scheduled to participate in a Tuesday press conference included Senate President Steve Sweeney, incoming Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver, incoming Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, and state Democratic Chairman Assemblyman John Wisniewski.
With Democratic leadership unified in calling for the law’s passage, the bill will likely fare better in the legislature than the 2010 attempt to convert civil unions into same-sex marriage rights for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Both houses will have to secure a two-thirds super-majority to overcome a promised veto by Christie, according to the Star-Ledger.
In 2009, in the waning days of the administration of marriage supporter Gov. Jon Corzine, the New Jersey Legislature debated and killed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage.
“The days are over when marriage equality was the third rail of American politics,” Garden State Equality chair Steven Goldstein said in a statement. “Today, in a state and nation that supports marriage equality, not standing up for equality is the third rail for prejudice.”
In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Lewis v. Harris that same-sex couples must be provided all the same rights as opposite-sex married couples. The high court, however, left the means of doing so up to the legislature. Rather than make marriage gender-neutral, as Massachusetts had, the New Jersey Legislature passed the Civil Union Act in December 2006, offering same-sex couples the same state-level benefits as opposite-sex married couples.
Following its passage, the state commissioned a study on the effectiveness of the law. The 2008 New Jersey Civil Union Commission concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey with the passage of time.” It unanimously recommended enacting marriage in the place of civil unions.
The commission discovered some businesses and institutions that offered insurance and other benefits to opposite-sex spouses of married employees were slow to offer those same benefits to same-sex spouses of those employees in civil unions. According to Garden State Equality, by the end of July 2007, 1 out of 7 couples who had entered into New Jersey civil unions had reported that their employers refused to recognize their civil unions, including DHL, FedEx and UPS, the last of which claimed their contract with the Teamsters Union prevented them from offering the benefits since the civil unions law did not explicitly designate partners entering into the unions as ‘spouses.’
“What New Jersey’s legislative leaders are telling us clearly today is that the Garden State values its gay and lesbian citizens fully, and does not accept treating same-sex couples and their families as second class citizens, as it presently does with civil unions,” said Freedom to Marry campaign director Marc Solomon. “Marriage matters for same-sex couples and their families, both because it says we’re a family through thick and thin in a way that nothing else does, and because it provides a critical safety-net of protections that civil unions do not.”
In July, Lambda Legal filed suit in New Jersey court on behalf of Garden State Equality and seven families headed by same-sex couples stating that the civil unions law violates not only the New Jersey Constitution but the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well.
“We believe in all roads to justice,” Goldstein said on Tuesday. “Whether through the legislature or the courts, however we can win equality, we will.”
Upon the announcement of the bill’s introduction, the entire New Jersey Democratic delegation to the United States Congress signed a joint letter urging their colleagues in the New Jersey state legislature to pass the marriage bill.
Full text of letter from New Jersey Democratic delegation to the United States congress:
Dear Democratic Colleagues in the New Jersey Senate and Assembly:
We, the entire Democratic membership of the New Jersey Congressional delegation, urge you to support the marriage equality bill being introduced by the Democratic leadership in the state Senate and Assembly, along with many sponsors.
New Jersey has a proud history of civil rights leadership, and we must continue our role in pursuing fairness and equality. Other states with a combined population of more than 35 million people already have marriage equality – including our next door neighbor, New York.
Although New Jersey has a civil union law, ample testimony before the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee two years ago demonstrated that the civil union law has not successfully provided equality to same-sec couples in New Jersey. Couples testified that hospitals still refuse visitation and medical-decision rights because they do not consider civil unions to be equal to marriage. Similarly, couples demonstrated that employers continue to refuse to grant equal benefits to civil union partners.
As more states recognize marriage equality, civil unions threaten to become an even less respected and understood alternative to marriage. The 2008 New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission concluded there was “overwhelming evidence that civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey with the passage of time.”
It is important to note that New Jersey enacted the strongest possible civil union law in 2006. Therefore, it is not feasible to “fix” the law short of providing marriage equality. The time has come to end discrimination in marriage. The marriage equality bill in the New Jersey legislature needs your support.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Laurenberg, United States Senator
Robert Menendez, United States Senator
Rush Holt, Member of Congress
Robert Andrews, Member of Congress
Albio Sires, Member of Congress
Steven Rothman, Member of Congress
Bill Pascrell, Member of Congress
Frank Pallone, Jr., Member of Congress
Donals Payne, Member of Congress
National
Antony Blinken, USAID mark World AIDS Day
Officials reiterate Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to end pandemic
Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the U.S. Agency for International Development on Sunday marked World AIDS Day.
Blinken in his statement echoed the Biden-Harris administration’s call “for collective action with partners around the world to sustain and accelerate the great progress we have made toward ending HIV/AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.”
“Over the past four years, the State Department has worked tirelessly to save lives through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR),” the statement reads. “In partnership with foreign governments, PEPFAR has changed the trajectory of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and now supports more than 20 million people on lifesaving treatment across 55 countries around the world. Independent analyses have documented a direct link of this lifesaving work to economic growth across PEPFAR partner countries. Bipartisan action on a clean, five-year reauthorization of PEPFAR is essential to ending HIV/AIDS as a public health threat and to implementing the program’s plans to sustain success over the long term through partner country and community-led and managed programs.”
Blinken further stressed World AIDS Day “is a day to remember the more than 42 million lives lost to HIV/AIDS — a stark reminder of the threat this virus continues to pose if we do not ensure that partner countries have the vision and capacity to sustain a bold response.”
“We must continue to chart a course together that will help communities stay safe and prosperous by ending HIV/AIDS as a public health threat,” he said.
USAID spokesperson Benjamin Suarato in a statement echoed Blinken.
“Each year, we observe World AIDS Day to honor people living with and affected by HIV, remember those we have lost, and recommit to ending HIV as a public health threat by 2030,” said Suarato. “For decades, USAID has worked to support those affected by HIV, as well as the health workers, scientists, researchers, advocates, and communities dedicated to the HIV response.”
Suarato noted this year’s World AIDS Day’s theme, “Collective Action: Sustain and Accelerate HIV Progress,” “underscores the long-term leadership of the United States to galvanize global solidarity and make critical investments to reduce HIV transmission, improve access to treatment, and advance transformative partnerships to sustain a locally-led HIV response.” Suarato also highlighted PEPFAR has saved “more than 25 million lives and helped more than 5.5 million babies to be born HIV-free across 55 countries.”
“We recognize that ending HIV as a public health threat requires enduring cooperation with partner country governments, civil society, faith-based, and other non-governmental organizations, researchers, and scientists,” said Suarato. “It also requires us to continue to elevate the leadership of communities and individuals living with and affected by HIV. On this World AIDS Day, USAID reaffirms our dedication to collective action.”
President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden on Sunday will commemorate World AIDS Day at the White House. AIDS Memorial Quilt panels will be shown on the White House’s South Lawn for the first time.
The Washington Blade will have further coverage of the White House commemoration.
Federal Government
HIV positive patients can now receive organs from HIV positive donors
New HHS rule applies to liver and kidney transplants
A new rule announced Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will allow HIV positive patients to receive organs from HIV positive donors, a move that will expand the pool of available organs and reduce wait times.
“This rule removes unnecessary barriers to kidney and liver transplants, expanding the organ donor pool and improving outcomes for transplant recipients with HIV,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.
The agency noted that the final rule also aims to combat stigma and health inequities associated with HIV.
“Research shows that kidney and liver transplants between donors and recipients with HIV can be performed safely and effectively,” Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine added. “This policy change reflects our commitment to following the evidence and updating our approaches as we learn more. By removing research requirements where they are no longer needed, we can help more people with HIV access life-saving transplants.”
HHS notes that the rule applies to kidney and liver transplants, which correspond with the areas in which the evidence from biomedical research is the most “robust.”
Federal Government
LGBTQ federal workers face tough decisions, big worries amid Trump transition
‘I plan to leave after the inauguration’
Donald Trump’s return to the White House promises to shake up Washington in ways not seen even during the norm-shattering Trump 1.0 years: on the table are blueprints for radically reforming the federal civil service into a more partisan institution where loyalty is prized at the expense of expertise and competence; off the table, among other things, are anti-discrimination protections that had long bolstered the rights and welfare of LGBTQ federal government employees.
Washington proudly boasts, per-capita, the highest LGBTQ population of any city in any state in America. Ninety-two percent of the city’s 678,000+ residents voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. So, according to exit polls, did 86 percent of LGBTQ voters.
Many of D.C.’s LGBTQ residents who work for the federal government find themselves, now, at an unenviable crossroads. Some stood to lose their jobs regardless of who won in November because they serve in higher-ranking “political” roles that typically turn over administration-to-administration, but more are “career” employees with experience serving with both parties in charge of the White House.
Many find themselves choosing whether to wade into a hyperlocal job market that is, at the moment, competitive for job seekers — or continue, if they can, working under institutions run by Republicans who have vowed to destroy them (or at least shake them up, whatever that will mean).
The Washington Blade has spoken with LGBTQ employees in the federal government who worry about the welfare of gay, queer, and trans colleagues they plan to leave behind for jobs in the private sector. They share a deep concern, too, for the LGBTQ Americans who, they believe, will suffer harmful consequences of policy and governance under the incoming administration.
A lesbian attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice and a gay senior official for the U.S. Department of Commerce spoke anonymously with the Blade to share experiences and observations at their respective agencies.
Do you expect to be working elsewhere when Trump 2.0 begins in January
[Justice Department]: I plan to leave shortly after the inauguration.
[Commerce Department]: I hope to be working elsewhere by the next term. The job market is incredibly competitive, but that’s because the Biden administration hired the best and brightest public servants that represent every community in America. It’s particularly important that companies and nonprofits seek out the great early/mid-career staff from the administration. Many finished college remotely during the pandemic, to then immediately serve their country. They have exceptional work experience, but can be at a hiring disadvantage behind their classmates who immediately entered the workforce.
Would you be (or might you be) allowed to continue in your role under the next administration if you wished to do so?
[Justice]: Probably not.
Under the next administration, if you were allowed to continue in your role or serve in a different position at your agency or perhaps work elsewhere in the federal government, would you? Why or why not?
[Justice]: No—risk of doxing is too high; did it once before and not interested in doing it again.
[Commerce]: I would not work in the Trump administration, even if allowed. To work for someone who believes in retribution over public service would violate the oath I took to my country and the Constitution he refuses to respect. I look forward to doing what queer people have done for all of American history: shining brightly in the face of hate and being a success in spite of every attempt to shame.
What can you tell me about the post-election turnover at your agency that you’ve seen so far or expect to see in the coming months, as compared to that which you might have experienced during previous transitions?
[Justice]: I expect to see many more people leave than in any previous admin change.
[Commerce]: Experienced career staff who survived the first Trump years are burned out and leaving. This is a horrible loss for the American people who are losing the dedicated subject matter experts who do the hard work of making their lives easier, safer, and healthier. So many of them work for the federal government because of how it can be used to help people in big ways. They’re horrified to think of all the people, especially minorities, women, and queer people, will, instead, be targeted. They don’t want to be a part of that. They can’t live with that.
Are any of your LGBTQ colleagues staying in their jobs? If so, what can you share about the reasons you’ve heard for their decision to stay?
[Justice]: Yes; many will stay because they don’t have the luxury of leaving without a job lined up.
What are some of your biggest concerns specific to how your agency might be run under the Trump 2.0 regime?
[Justice]: They will dismantle the civil rights division at DOJ or completely shift its focus.
[Commerce]: I’m horrified at how data may be weaponized against vulnerable people. So much work has been done to help communities by building close-knit relationships with leaders across the countries. Will all these programs focused on supporting the most vulnerable and underserved among us be turned on them to identify easy targets to victimize?
Broadly speaking, what concerns do you have about the rights, safety, and wellbeing of LGBTQ folks who will remain in the civil service post-January, or those who might join the federal government’s civilian workforce after Trump takes over?
[Justice]: LGBTQ+ people will be at greater risk of doxing; bathroom flexibilities will disappear; harassment will go unchecked.
[Commerce]: We are barely out of the shadow of the Lavender Scare, where thousands of queer American public servants were harassed, humiliated, and often fired in shame. It starts with removing Pride flags, then the photos of our partners on our desks, and then we’re escorted from the building for being security risks. LGBTQ Americans are the soldiers, and scientists, and civil servants and should never, ever have to worry if their mere existence could suddenly cost them their security clearance, their career path, or their safety.
How do you think staff turnover at your agency will impact its work under the next administration?
[Justice]: Staff turnover will severely undermine DOJ’s work and protecting the rule of law.
If, ultimately, a disproportionate number of LGBTQ workers leave for jobs in the private sector, are you concerned about harms that might result from the loss of voices representing the community in the federal government and/or in your agency specifically?
[Justice]: Re: loss of voices, yes. The federal government cannot function as effectively when it doesn’t reflect the public it serves.