Connect with us

National

BREAKING: N.C. voters approve anti-gay amendment

Sweeping measure adds marriage ban to state constitution

Published

on

Raleigh, N.C. (photo by Mark Turner via wikimedia)

Voters in North Carolina on Tuesday approved a sweeping anti-gay amendment that made a ban on same-sex marriage part of the state constitution in addition to jeopardizing other rights for gay couples.

The Associated Press called the race in the favor of the anti-gay measure, known as Amendment One, shortly after 9 p.m. Polls closed at 7:30 p.m.

According to early results, 61 percent of voters in North Carolina voted in favor of the amendment while 39 percent voted against it. Amendment One found majority support in the vast majority of counties, although a few counties voted to reject the measure: Wake, Chatham, Durham, Orange, Watauga, Mecklenburg and Buncombe.

Same-sex marriage is already barred by statute in North Carolina. But the amendment not only makes that ban part of the state constitution, it prohibits civil unions, interferes with domestic partner benefits offered by municipalities and threatens contractual arrangements between same-sex partners. The amendment’s restrictions on domestic partner benefits will likely be contested in court.

The vote on the amendment took place on the same day as the North Carolina primary, but the measure drew more attention than the presidential race because Mitt Romney has already become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

National LGBT groups expressed disappointment with the passage of the amendment. The vote makes North Carolina the 30th state with a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, expressed disappointment, but characterized the vote as a temporary setback.

“The passage of Amendment One is a heartbreaking loss for families in North Carolina, but will not stop us in the march toward full equality,” Solmonese said. “As the country continues to move in the direction of marriage equality, our opponents have cynically interrupted the important conversations taking place which lead to increased understanding and acceptance.”

According to HRC, the organization spent just over $500,000 in the effort against Amendment One in three ways: HRC North Carolina PAC has funneled about $240,000 to the campaign; HRC itself gave about $60,000 in cash; and the group contributed about $200,000 in in-kind expenditures that was mostly staff time.

The Obama campaign also weighed in after the passage of the amendment with a statement from an official in North Carolina.

Cameron French, North Carolina press secretary for Obama for America, said the president is “disappointed” by the passage of Amendment One.

“The president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples,” French said. “He believes the North Carolina measure singles out and discriminates against committed gay and lesbian couples, which is why he did not support it. President Obama has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples and is disappointed in the passage of this amendment. On a federal level, he has ended the legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act and extended key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.”

Several other national LGBT groups made no direct contributions to the campaign. Freedom to Marry made no donations to the campaign as it directed $3 million in funds to battles in other states: Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Washington.

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, emphasized his organization’s contributions to efforts to block the amendment from coming to the ballot.

“Freedom to Marry contributed to the effort to block the amendment in the legislature and offered messaging strategy and research to the campaign,” Wolfson said. “We also sent several alerts to our supporters urging them to donate directly to the campaign, even as we are deeply engaged in the lift to win ballot battles in three other states, are working to override the veto in New Jersey, and successfully led the fight to hold the freedom to marry in New Hampshire.”

Gill Action Fund also made no direct contributions, according to the most recent campaign disclosure records. The organization didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Prior to the vote, former President Bill Clinton recorded a robocall urging North Carolina residents to oppose Amendment One. According to the campaign against Amendment One, the Clinton robocall went out to 500,000 likely voters in North Carolina.

“If it passes, it won’t change North Carolina’s law on marriage,” Clinton says on the call. “What it will change is North Carolina’s ability to keep good businesses, attract new jobs, and attract and keep talented entrepreneurs. If it passes, your ability to keep those businesses, get those jobs, and get those talented entrepreneurs will be weakened. And losing even one job to Amendment One is too big of a risk.”

On the other side, evangelist Rev. Billy Graham came out in favor of the anti-gay measure and delivered a statement that was set to run in 14 North Carolina newspapers last weekend.

“At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage,” Graham says. “The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment.”

Graham continues, “Watching the moral decline of our country causes me great concern. I believe the home and marriage is the foundation of our society and must be protected.”

The level of involvement of President Obama and the Democratic National Committee has drawn mixed reaction from LGBT activists.

The DNC didn’t make a donation to the campaign against Amendment One, even though the campaign asked for funds to combat the anti-gay measure and the DNC previously made a $25,000 contribution to the fight against California’s Proposition 8 in 2008.

The Obama campaign issued a statement earlier in the month saying the president opposes divisive and discriminatory measures and “does not support” Amendment One. According to the campaign against Amendment One, that statement was the goal that organizers had sought from Obama.

But many LGBT advocates asked Obama to denounce the measure himself publicly and were disappointed that he made no mention of the measure in a speech to college students on April 24 in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Pam Spaulding, a lesbian blogger for Pam’s House Blend, expressed disappointment in the president’s failure to speak out against Amendment One publicly in an email to the Washington Blade following the speech.

“This president hasn’t exactly been known to be bold about weighing in on the Amendment; after all, his statement against Amendment One came from a NC spokesperson, not from the man himself,” Spaulding said. “It was no surprise, given the administration’s predilection for succumbing to political homophobia, or fear that being outspoken in speeches or on camera regarding LGBT issues — even on a subject he has a clear position on, such as opposing discriminatory ballot initiatives like this — usually rules the day.”

A campaign mailing dated May 7 makes no mention of Amendment One — even though it came out the day before the measure came before voters — as it called on followers to show support for Obama.

“The primary is a great opportunity to come out, meet other supporters in your area, and make your voice heard,” the mailing states. “And even though we already know that President Obama will be our nominee, it’s important that we let him know we’re standing with him, now and in November.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular