Connect with us

National

‘It’s just an act of meanness’

N.C. couples brace for May vote on sweeping marriage ban

Published

on

Shana Carignan, Megan Parker Carignan, Jax, gay news, gay politics dc, North Carolina, same-sex marriage, gay marriage

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

2026 Midterm Elections

Chris Pappas wins NH Democratic Senate primary

Gay congressman running to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) speaks at the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund's 2025 National Champagne Brunch in D.C. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

New Hampshire Congressman Chris Pappas on Tuesday won the Democratic primary in the race to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) in the U.S. Senate.

Pappas defeated Karishma Manzur, who was his primary challenger, by a 61.8-36.1 percent margin.

The gay congressman will face off against former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu, who defeated former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in the Republican primary.

“Tonight’s victory sends a clear message that voters are looking for leaders who will fight for their rights, their freedoms, and to be treated with dignity and respect,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson in a statement. 

She campaigned for Pappas in Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest city, on Aug. 30.

“Chris Pappas has delivered results, stood up for equality, and showed up for the people he serves,” said Robinson in her statement. “HRC was proud to mobilize Equality Voters across New Hampshire to help power this win. We don’t have a second to waste between now and November. We look forward to continuing our work with Rep. Pappas as he drives toward victory in November so he can help return a pro-equality majority to the United States Senate.”

poll the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released on Aug. 26 showed Sununu ahead of Pappas by a 45-43 percent margin if they were to face off in the general election. The margin of error is +/-2.1 percent.

Pappas would become the first openly gay man elected to the U.S. Senate if he were to win in November.

Continue Reading

Georgia

Everton Blair makes history as first openly gay congressman from Ga.

Former Gwinnett County Board of Education member to serve remainder of David Scott’s term

Published

on

Everton Blair, Jr. (Photo courtesy of Blair's campaign website.)

Georgia made history last week when Everton Blair, Jr., was sworn into the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming the state’s first openly LGBTQ member of Congress and the latest LGBTQ addition to the chamber.

Blair, who represents Georgia’s 13th Congressional District, was sworn in on Sept. 1 after winning a special election to fill the vacancy left by the late-Congressman David Scott. Blair defeated Marcye Scott, the late congressman’s daughter, in the Aug. 25 runoff, winning 53.2 percent of the vote to Scott’s 46.8 percent.

He will serve the remainder of Scott’s term through Jan. 3, 2027. Blair is not running in the November general election for a full term.

Blair brings a progressive platform to Congress.

The 34 year-old supports Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, raising the minimum wage, and universal gun background checks. His campaign platform also included positions on LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, workers’ rights, climate, and gun violence.

Since joining the House, Blair has joined the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus. He is also a co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

Before joining the House, Blair served on the Gwinnett County Board of Education, where he became the first Black member and youngest-ever member elected to the board, as well as its first openly gay member. He was later unanimously selected as chair.

Blair also served as a fellow in President Barack Obama’s White House Initiative on Educational Excellence that focused on improving academic outcomes and expanding opportunities for minority students.

The son of Jamaican immigrants, Blair was born and raised in Georgia’s 13th Congressional District. He earned a bachelor’s degree in applied mathematics from Harvard University, a master’s degree in policy, organization, and leadership from Stanford University, and a Doctor of Education Leadership degree from Harvard.

Blair’s campaign received endorsements from a number of organizations, including the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and progressive Democratic groups such as Future Democrats.

The Equality PAC, a political action committee dedicated to electing openly LGBTQ candidates to office, celebrated Blair’s victory and provided a statement to the Washington Blade about the historic nature of his election.

“This is a historic election for Georgia, the South, and our entire country,” Equality PAC said in an email. “Everton Blair brings a strong record of public service and a deep commitment to making government work for working families.”

The group said Blair would “fight to lower costs, expand access to quality health care, create economic opportunity, and ensure every community has a voice in Washington.”

“At the same time, Everton understands the importance of standing up for equality and defending the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ Americans and every community facing discrimination,” Equality PAC said. “His historic election as Georgia’s first openly LGBTQ Member of Congress and the first openly LGBTQ man elected from the South is a powerful reminder of how far our country has come — and how much work remains.”

Equality PAC said it was “proud to welcome Everton to the House” and looked forward to working with him.

Continue Reading

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Pentagon expands testosterone screening as trans troops face hormone therapy restrictions

Defense Department says updated guidelines to be issued shortly

Published

on

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Pentagon has announced that new clinical guidance will be released establishing mandatory testosterone deficiency screening for active-duty and reserve cisgender male service members ages 30 and older, advancing a policy that expands hormone-related care for cisgender troops.

The Defense Department said the existing clinical guidelines, which are not currently available on the Defense Health Agency’s website, are being updated and that the final guidance will be issued shortly.

The announcement comes amid a wave of anti-transgender policies from both the DoD and the Trump-Vance administration, which continue to prohibit trans men from receiving the same treatment.

Under the forthcoming guidance, men ages 30 and older will be forced to undergo testosterone blood tests as part of their medical care. Younger male service members will be tested if they request screening or if clinicians identify warning signs of low testosterone.

The new guidelines formalize a screening program Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in July, when he said the Pentagon would begin testing service members to ensure that “you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best.”

“Taking care of your long-term health means ensuring you remain strong, resilient, and capable — not just for your next deployment, but for the rest of your life, so you can thrive long after you take off the uniform,” Hegseth said at the time.

The Defense Health Agency’s clinical guidance says the program is intended to address “hormonal and energy-availability issues.” Hegseth said in July that testosterone replacement therapy would remain voluntary for service members if treatment is recommended.

The Food and Drug Administration is also scheduled to hold a meeting later this month with experts to discuss the medical use of testosterone.

The Pentagon’s push to routinely test testosterone levels runs counter to current medical guidance, which generally recommends considering testosterone therapy only for men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and have documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.

Testosterone is a sex hormone naturally produced by people of all sexes. It plays a role in regulating muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. Testosterone levels in men naturally decline with age and have been associated with symptoms including erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes and weight gain, although experts continue to debate when testosterone therapy is medically appropriate.

The policy has drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ advocates because the Pentagon and Hegseth have simultaneously cited hormone therapy as part of the rationale for removing trans service members from the military.

Under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” the military has moved to bar trans people diagnosed with gender dysphoria from serving and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings against trans personnel.

The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation over the policy proceeds. As a result, some trans service members have had their gender-affirming hormone therapy halted even as the Pentagon expands testosterone screening and potential treatment for cisgender service members.

SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans and their allies, criticized the disparity to the Washington Blade when Hegseth first announced the screening program.

“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”

On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.

The Blade reached out to the Pentagon when the testosterone screening program was first announced in July, asking why cisgender service members could receive testosterone therapy while transgender service members could not. The Pentagon did not respond.

Continue Reading

Popular