National
‘It’s just an act of meanness’
N.C. couples brace for May vote on sweeping marriage ban
Shana Carignan (left) and Megan Parker Carignan with their son Jax. The North Carolina couple fears a proposed constitutional amendment would cost them crucial domestic partner benefits they need to care for their child. (Courtesy Photo)
For Shana Carignan and Megan Parker Carignan, the passage of Amendment 1 in North Carolina would mean much more than a dashed dream of walking down the aisle.
The Greensboro, N.C., couple faces the prospect of losing crucial domestic partner benefits they need to care for Jax, a four-year-old special needs child they adopted, as well as for Mary, a special needs elderly woman they’ve taken care of for about seven years.
Shana said “a lot of things are at stake” if Amendment 1 passes because her custody of Jax could be jeopardized if something should happen to Megan, who legally adopted the child.
“There’s a good chance that I would not be in custody of him,” Shana said. “Even if we were to draw up guardianship papers, they’re saying that there’s risk that this amendment would null and void it and that he would probably go back into the foster care system in Texas.”
Noting Jax has special needs, Shana said she doesn’t believe many other families would be able to care for the child should he be sent back to Texas.
Moreover, Amendment 1 would also cause problems if Shana were injured or died because Jax wouldn’t receive any benefits as a result that would be afforded to children under the care of their biological parents.
Also at stake is the couple’s home. The house in which the two reside is currently in Megan’s name. Even though both have contributed income toward the household, Shana could lose the home if something should happen to Megan.
“Even if she put me in her will, there’s a good chance that the courts would not give me anything that we worked toward together because we’re not married and because we’re not blood related,” Shana said.
At first blush, the result of the vote on the anti-gay amendment may seem neutral because same-sex marriage is already prohibited by statute in North Carolina. If Amendment 1 passes on May 8, same-sex couples won’t be able to marry. If Amendment 1 fails on May 8, same-sex couples won’t be able to marry.
But the sweeping measure would not only enshrine in the state constitution a ban on their ability to marry, but would take away domestic partner health benefits and make contractual agreements questionable at best.
The amendment reads, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” Opponents of the measure say anyone who falls outside of this definition could potentially be harmed by the amendment.
Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for the Coalition to Protect All NC Families, emphasized that Amendment 1 would have “far-reaching, negative consequences” that would go beyond a ban on same-sex marriage if it were passed.
“If the national industries pushing Amendment One intended to simply codify existing state laws banning same-sex marriage, they’ve made an egregious mistake, and in doing so impacted our state’s most vulnerable North Carolina families,” Kennedy said. “In addition to banning civil unions and domestic partnerships, Amendment One’s broad language could take health care away from children, put domestic violence laws in jeopardy, force seniors to choose between their hard-earned benefits and legal protections, and, in doing so, threaten all unmarried couples in North Carolina.”
Both Shana, 29, a fundraiser a local HIV non-profit, and Megan, 33, a caregiver for individuals with special needs, expressed frustration over the prospects of losing the benefits they need to protect their family if North Carolina voters approve Amendment 1 next month.
Shana said she’s “appalled” that her rights that many other couples may take for granted will come up to a vote. The couple had a commitment ceremony two years ago, but haven’t been legally married.
“I work a job, I pay my taxes, I have been raising a family,” Shana said. “We’re raising a family that’s non traditional that maybe a lot of people wouldn’t choose, or wouldn’t want to put in the amount of work that we put into our family because of the circumstances involving the disabilities. It’s already hard for us, and to make it that much harder is hurtful and just shocking.”
Megan echoed the sentiments expressed by her partner.
“We work so hard and I think if you look at our character, we just try so hard to be the best people and citizens that we can be,” Meghan said. “I love where I’m from so much, and just to think that there’s a potential that the state constitution could be amended to exclude me from so many things is frustrating and disheartening.”
Another couple that resides in Durham, N.C., Libby and Melissa Hodges, also expressed frustration over Amendment 1 because its passage would mean they would lose their domestic partner benefits. Both work as city planners and have a four-year-old daughter.
Libby, 32, said she receives domestic partner benefits from her job because that’s the most inexpensive way to care for Melissa, 33, and their daughter, but these benefits would become unavailable if Amendment 1 passes.
“Currently, the city I work for has domestic partner benefits and I cover [our daughter] under that insurance,” Libby said. “If the amendment passes, there stands to be a very good chance that she’ll not be able to covered under my insurance any longer.”
The couple also expressed concern about the consequences in the event the two decided to split. Melissa, the biological mother of their daughter, would have no obligation to provide visitation rights, nor would Libby have any obligation to provide any care.
“I see the signs out for the amendment,” Melissa said. “I feel like it’s just an act of meanness. I don’t see where it benefits anyone; it’s just trying to strike out and hurt me more. Related to my relationship I have very few rights as it is, and they’re striking out to take the few that we have away.”
A survey by Public Policy Polling last month revealed 58 percent of likely voters intend to vote for the amendment, while 38 percent were planning a “no” vote.
However, supporters don’t seem to fully understand the bill’s potential consequences. For example, 51 percent said they support some kind of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples — either marriage or a civil union — yet 34 percent of that same group still intend to vote for the amendment.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Murdered Israeli embassy officials were supporters of D.C.’s LGBTQ synagogue
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
