National
Lessons from N.C. defeat
Did lack of money or wrong message lead to sweeping anti-gay marriage amendment?
Incoming HRC President Chad Griffin is one of two principal partners in Armour Griffin Media Group, which was paid to produce TV ads in North Carolina’s amendment fight. (Photo courtesy of AFER)
In the week leading up to the May 8 vote in North Carolina on a proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions, officials with the campaign opposing the amendment said they believed they had a shot at defeating it.
“We were on conference calls where they were saying we are in striking distance,” said lesbian journalist and commentator Pam Spaulding of North Carolina, who publishes the LGBT political blog Pam’s House Blend.
“The campaign was saying 11 points and closing — that we were knocking in half the gap every week that they started the final [campaign] assault,” Spaulding told the Blade.
According to Spaulding, at an election night gathering in Raleigh, campaign leaders and volunteers who worked to defeat the amendment were stunned when the State Board of Elections announced the amendment passed by a 61-39 percent margin.
“Were their numbers that far off or did they know the numbers and were not disclosing them,” Spaulding asked in discussing the information released by the opposition campaign to bloggers. “How could they be 21 points off?”
Officials with the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, which operated the campaign opposing Amendment One, said the numbers they cited were from the polling firm Public Policy Polling, which showed support for the amendment down to 55 percent in the week before the election.
“There were a lot of polls, and they were all across the map,” said Stuart Campbell, executive director of the statewide LGBT advocacy group Equality North Carolina and a member of the opposition campaign’s seven-member Steering Committee.
“We actually had internal polling back in January that showed close to 70 percent — around 67 to 68 percent — in favor,” he said. “So we actually do believe we moved it anywhere between seven and 10 points.”
In addition to Equality North Carolina, the organizations represented on the Steering Committee, whom officials said made all key decisions for the campaign, included the Human Rights Campaign; the ACLU of North Carolina; Faith In America; Replacements, Ltd., a gay-owned company that sells upscale dinnerware; Self-Help, an LGBT supportive credit union based in North Carolina; and Southerners on New Ground (SONG), a North Carolina group that promotes progressive causes.
In late December or early January the Steering Committee retained the Los Angeles-based Armour Griffin Media Group to produce the campaign TV ads. Officials said the campaign retained the company months before they learned that Chad Griffin, one of the two principal partners in the firm, was to be selected as the new HRC president. Campaign finance records show the campaign paid the company $66,000 for its media work as of May 11, the close of the most recent campaign finance reporting period.
Campbell and campaign co-chair Alex Miller said the campaign built important alliances with progressive groups, LGBT supportive churches and religious leaders, and leaders of the African-American community that would benefit the LGBT community for years to come.
One of the most important developments, Campbell and Miller said, was the decision by the NAACP of North Carolina to come out against the amendment. Under the leadership of Rev. William Barber II, the state’s NAACP president, the historic black civil rights organization activated its chapters in counties across the state to speak out against the amendment.
Barber told the Blade that he believes a majority of black North Carolinians voted against the amendment despite claims by some media outlets that polls showed a majority of blacks favored the ballot measure.
Ray Warren, a former North Carolina circuit court judge who’s familiar with the state’s voting trends and demographics, said a review of the vote in most parts of the state showed that all of the state’s large cities and urban areas voted against the amendment. In what he called a dramatic contrast, all of the rural counties and nearly all of the suburbs outside city boundaries voted for the amendment.
Ninety-two of the state’s 100 counties voted for the amendment. Each of the eight counties voting against it included cities or urban-oriented towns with universities within their boundaries.
According to Warren, in a development rarely seen in the state, black and white voters appeared to vote alike, with majority white and majority black precincts voting for the amendment in rural and suburban areas. In cities and urban centers, majority black and majority white precincts voted against the amendment, Warren said.
Debate over campaign message
Brent Childers, executive director of Faith in America, said the campaign could have been more effective in challenging and refuting religious arguments used to support Amendment One. (Photo courtesy of Childers)
Some LGBT supportive observers wanted to know whether the message projected by the campaign opposing the amendment in TV ads and other media amounted to the best means possible to persuade voters to reject the amendment.
Marriage equality supporter Brent Childers, executive director of the North Carolina-based group Faith in America, which challenges what Childers calls the “misuse” of religion to deny rights to LGBT people, said the campaign could have been more effective in challenging and refuting religious arguments used to support Amendment One.
Still others, including North Carolina lesbian activist Mandy Carter, joined Spaulding in expressing concern that the opposition campaign mostly “de-gayed” its messages in TV ads by stressing the harms the amendment would have on straight unmarried couples.
Campaign officials dispute these claims, saying the campaign aggressively embraced its support for marriage equality for gays and projected that message through many campaign venues, including online videos as well as TV ads.
The campaign recruited a lesbian mother to appear in one of the three TV ads aired shortly before the election. Campaign officials told the media in a press release that the woman and her same-sex partner rely on the partner’s employee health insurance to provide coverage for their daughter.
But in the TV ad the woman isn’t identified as a lesbian. While driving a car with her child sitting next to her she says Amendment One would likely result in the loss of her daughter’s health insurance.
“[It’s] because we’re not married,” she says in the ad, referring to her partner. The partner’s gender isn’t mentioned.
“If you’re watching it on television there’s no way to know,” Spaulding said, referring to the woman’s sexual orientation.
Campaign officials said they believe the ad was effective in showing how the amendment would have serious consequences for unmarried couples, gay or straight, and it likely persuaded some voters to oppose the amendment.
In a series of interviews, pollsters, campaign officials, political analysts affiliated with North Carolina universities, representatives of LGBT advocacy groups, and LGBT supportive straight allies provided the Blade with a wide range of opinions addressing these questions.
Most agreed, however, that private polls commissioned for the campaign as well as polls conducted by other pollsters showed that a solid majority of North Carolinians oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. They noted that the same polls showed that a campaign and vote framed only around the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry would result in a certain defeat for the pro-marriage equality side.
Leaders of the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families said they chose an “evidence-based” approach of using the best possible research from privately commissioned polls to develop the message they ultimately used.
That message focused on how Amendment One goes far beyond banning same-sex marriage and, among other things, would ban civil unions for gay and straight couples. It could also lead to a wide range of harmful effects on all unmarried couples, gay and straight, and their children, the group stressed in its “messaging” campaign.
Advocates of this approach noted that an existing law in North Carolina already prohibited same-sex marriage and that an amendment to the state constitution doing the same thing was unnecessary.
Supporters of the amendment disputed that assertion, saying a constitutional amendment was needed to prevent a court from overturning the state’s existing law banning same-sex marriage. They noted that gay rights advocates had already filed at least one lawsuit challenging the existing gay marriage statute.
Political observers noted that after blocking a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage for years under Democratic Party leadership, the state legislature approved a proposal to place the issue before the voters in 2011 after Republicans gained control of the legislature for the first time in decades in the 2010 election.
Over the strong objections of many Democrats and some Republicans, supporters of the amendment worded it in a way that expanded its scope beyond just marriage.
Amendment One states, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”
The amendment adds, “This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”
Legal experts in the state have said the amendment’s definition of marriage as the “only domestic legal union” would place in jeopardy rights and benefits currently being offered to gay or straight unmarried couples, such as domestic partner benefits offered by private companies or local governmental entities like cities and towns, including health insurance benefits and hospital visitation rights.
The Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families cited legal experts who said safeguards against domestic violence might also be jeopardized by the amendment, with the possibility that a court could no longer issue a legal “stay away” order for a partner accused of physically abusing the other partner if the couple were not married.
“We saw that all these terrible things could happen,” said Stuart Campbell, executive director of the state LGBT advocacy group Equality North Carolina and a member of the Steering Committee of the campaign opposing the amendment.
Supporters of the amendment, led by the state group Vote for North Carolina Marriage and the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, said claims that the amendment would impact health insurance benefits, domestic violence protections or child custody rights were unfounded.
Campbell said the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families’ Steering Committee initially hired the LGBT supportive polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research headed by pollster Anna Greenberg. In an effort to get a second opinion, the Steering committee a short time later retained Lake Research Partners, another LGBT supportive campaign research firm headed by pollster Celinda Lake. Both firms have long-established records of helping to win elections for mostly Democratic candidates and progressive causes.
Lake was the pollster in the 2006 campaign opposing a proposed same-sex marriage ban in Arizona that was defeated by voters, the only such ballot measure to lose in more than 30 states across the country that voted on such a measure. Observers said the measure lost in Arizona because most voters disagreed with the additional restrictions it would place on unmarried couples, similar to the “harms” cited by opponents of Amendment One in North Carolina.
Two years later, Arizona voters approved a same-sex marriage ban that didn’t include the additional restrictions on unmarried couples.
Lake told the Blade that the North Carolina campaign stressed the harms Amendment One would cause to gay and straight unmarried couples, including the children of such couples, but it was not modeled directly after the Arizona campaign since the two states have different voter demographics and political traditions.
Lake said her early polling in North Carolina conducted to test different messages clearly found that a message of the potential harm Amendment One would cause for unmarried couples, gay and straight, children of these couples, and women threatened by domestic violence resonated with many voters. Among other things, a significant number of voters who planned to vote for Amendment One changed their position and stated in her poll that they would vote against it after learning about the amendment’s impact beyond banning same-sex marriage, Lake said.
Lake described as historic the North Carolina campaign’s use of a TV ad asserting that Amendment One would harm children, saying it represented the first time a campaign opposing a ballot measure seeking to ban same-sex marriage has argued that such a proposal would harm children.
She noted that in all previous campaigns, supporters of anti-gay ballot measures argued that same-sex marriage would be harmful to children. In North Carolina, the campaign against the amendment turned the tables on the anti-marriage equality forces, opening the way for this “game-changing” strategy in future battles against ballot measures seeking to ban same-sex marriage, Lake said.
When asked why Amendment One passed by a 61 percent to 39 percent margin despite the use of the “unintended consequences” and harm to children strategy, Lake and others working with her on the campaign cited the campaign’s lack of sufficient funds to pay for more TV ads and their inability to begin airing the ads sooner.
Jeremy Kennedy, the campaign manager hired by the coalition Steering Committee to carry out the committee’s game plan, said more than 60 percent of the $2.8 million raised by the campaign came in during the last few weeks leading up to the May 8 election.
The three TV ads the campaign used didn’t begin airing until the state’s early voting had already started about 15 days prior to Election Day.
“I was surprised that the opposition campaign didn’t get on the air sooner,” said Wake Forest University political science professor John Dinan, who said he followed the campaigns for and against the amendment.
“To move voters you need to put on TV ads much sooner,” he said.
Kennedy said that in the last few weeks of the campaign, donors began to respond when some outside polls, including those conducted by the firm Public Policy Polling, showed the projected vote for the amendment dropping to about 55 percent.
“If we all had our way and we had early money we would have done several months of TV,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy, 34, is a native of Texas who moved to D.C. in 2007 to work on the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. After Clinton dropped out of the presidential race following the primary season in 2008, Kennedy took a job with the Human Rights Campaign’s field department in Washington.
In 2010 he moved to Maine to work on the gubernatorial primary campaign of Democrat Elizabeth “Libby” Mitchell, who won the primary but lost the general election to Republican Gov. Paul Lepage. Following that campaign, Kennedy went to work as a state field director for the Maine Democratic Party.
He next went to Rhode Island to work on the legislative effort in the state to pass a same-sex marriage law. The legislature changed course and approved a civil unions bill rather than a marriage law. Shortly after returning to Maine, which he considers his home state, Kennedy was recruited to North Carolina last December, where the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families hired him as campaign manager to work for the defeat of Amendment One.
One source familiar with the campaign said the Steering Committee awarded Kennedy a $5,000 bonus near the end of the campaign. Another source expressed concern that money for the bonus would have been better used to pay for additional media ads.
Campbell declined to confirm the amount of the bonus, saying it was a personnel matter that would not be appropriate to discuss publicly. However, he added, “It was not such a large amount that it would make a difference in the media campaign.
“I have nothing but good things to say about Jeremy,” Campbell said. “I think he did an excellent job. He ran the campaign that we hired him to run.”
HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz agreed with Campbell’s assessment of Kennedy.
“In everyone’s estimation – including ours – Jeremy Kennedy is a superstar!” Sainz said in an email to the Blade. “This campaign brought together a diverse coalition that left behind an infrastructure in North Carolina upon which we can build upon for progressive politics and gay rights.”
Sainz said that while the loss was a big disappointment, ballot measures banning same-sex marriage passed in the other Southern states by an average of 75 percent in past years. He said the 61 percent to 39 percent margin of approval of a gay marriage ban in North Carolina shows “amazing progress among Southerners and Americans in general on the issue of marriage equality.”
Approval by voters in Virginia of a state constitutional ban on gay marriage in 2006 by a margin of 57 percent marked the only Southern state with support for such an amendment at a lower percentage than North Carolina. Florida passed such an amendment with a margin of 62 percent in 2008. South Carolina approved a marriage ban amendment by a 78 percent margin of approval in 2006.
Campbell and campaign co-chair Miller said reports by some critics that the campaign ended with a significant surplus and that the campaign chose not to distribute yard signs to urge voters to defeat the amendment were not true.
The campaign distributed as many as 15,000 yard signs opposing Amendment One in mostly urban areas throughout the state, campaign officials said.
Miller said that the campaign’s finance report filed on May 21 showing a $92,317 surplus was based on incomplete data. Bills for media-related expenses and other expenditures had yet to be paid at the time of the report’s filing deadline. He said final expenses would be shown in a final, end-of-the-year report to be filed with the election board.
“We were pretty much down to the last penny,” he said of the campaign’s spending.
‘Mood is grim’
A 17-page memo that Greenberg sent to the campaign Steering Committee on Dec. 6, 2011, a copy of which the Blade obtained, says her polling found that a significant number of voters were inclined to change their vote from “yes” to “no” on the amendment after they learned of the potential harmful impact it would have, including its prohibition against civil unions and overall harmful effects on children.
Greenberg noted in her memo that many voters who opposed same-sex marriage did not object to civil unions for gay or straight couples.
But unlike Lake, Greenberg stated the overall prospects for defeating Amendment One were not encouraging even when the “unintended effects” were spelled out to prospective voters.
“The mood is grim — and conservative — in North Carolina,” she said in the memo. “North Carolina shocked the country by delivering its electoral votes to Barack Obama in 2008. The world has since turned,” she wrote in the memo. “Half of this (special) electorate describes their feelings toward Obama in negative terms,” she added in discussing her poll findings.
A source familiar with the campaign, who spoke on condition of not being identified, said Greenberg made it clear she didn’t think a victory was possible for the opposition side. Instead, she recommended the campaign adopt a strategy that would educate voters and help their opinions in favor of marriage equality for a future campaign, the source said.
“We would not complicate this issue with a discussion of the impact this would have on straight, unmarried couples, despite the Arizona experience,” she wrote in her memo. “Voters’ moral judgment is not expended entirely on the LGBTQ community as voters here have problems with unmarried straight couples living together as well. An additional focus on straight couples does not make enough difference to justify muddying up your message,” she said in the memo.
She said her memo was based on a survey of 600 likely special election voters in North Carolina taken Nov. 16-21, 2011. She said her poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent, found that 66 percent of the voters surveyed supported Amendment One, with 30 percent opposing it.
“More information and messaging reduced down the margin so by the end of the survey the support side leads by 24 points (59 percent favor, 36 percent oppose),” she said of the poll.
Greenberg’s adjusted poll numbers, reflecting the “messaging” that opponents used in the campaign, came close to the 61 percent to 39 percent outcome of the election nearly six months later.
Similar to Lake, Greenberg noted in her memo that opponents of Amendment One would need to invest in an extensive media campaign to educate voters of the harms the amendment would likely cause LGBT people and others.
Kennedy told the Blade that despite the fact that the campaign came close to meeting its $3 million fundraising goal, far more money was needed to educate voters that polls showed would switch from support to opposition of the amendment if they knew it went beyond just banning same-sex marriage.
Rev. Barber of the NAACP said the media were partially responsible for the lack of voter education.
“The folks who brought this forward framed it on whether you support gay marriage on religious grounds,” he said. “And the media fell for this. They should have made it clear that this was a constitutional amendment that would take away rights.”
He added, “The NAACP saw a dangerous pattern. We saw the rights of a minority being put up for a popular vote. The media never asked the right questions.”
Childers of Faith In America said he attempted but did not succeed in persuading the campaign to directly respond to attacks against same-sex marriage by religious groups and leaders. He said Faith In America, which was co-founded by gay businessman Mitchell Gold, believes the opposition vote would have been considerably higher if the campaign addressed the religion issue “head on” in TV and other media ads.
Childers noted that the campaign opposing the amendment, among other things, should have responded to religious leaders’ claims that same-sex marriage is against God’s will. The Rev. Billy Graham was among the religious leaders in the state to come out for the amendment.
When told that sources familiar with the campaign said campaign officials were reluctant to question or challenge voters’ religious beliefs, Childers said, “That’s one of the fallacies that frankly our own community have fallen prey to. Any person that has spent much time at all in a religious environment knows that religious teachings are questioned all the time,” he said.
“If you look at the voice of history it is crystal clear when it comes to misuse of religious teachings to justify prejudice and discrimination against minorities,” Childers said. “We have concluded as a society on a number of occasions that that is simply a moral failing as a society.”
National
ACLU says trans athletes ruling is narrower than many believe
‘Narrow decision focused on the unique context of sports’
The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to uphold state laws barring transgender girls from competing on girls’ school sports teams represents a setback for transgender rights, but attorneys who argued the case say the ruling is considerably narrower than many initial reactions suggested.
Shortly after the decision was released, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union — which represented the plaintiffs in the case — held a press call to explain what they described as the limited scope of the Court’s opinion. While the ruling allows states to exclude transgender girls from girls’ school sports teams, they said it stops well short of creating a nationwide ban or dismantling broader legal protections for transgender people.
Joshua Block, senior counsel with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, said the majority intentionally confined its analysis to school athletics.
“[The majority] issued a narrow decision focused specifically on the unique context of sports. It didn’t issue a broader decision saying that Title IX in general didn’t protect transgender students. It didn’t say that other states couldn’t make a different policy choice and allow transgender girls to participate with cisgender girls, and it didn’t issue a sweeping ruling saying that under the Constitution it’s perfectly fine to discriminate based on transgender status.”
Block said one of the opinion’s most significant takeaways is that it leaves decisions about transgender participation in school sports largely in the hands of states.
“It leaves the rest of the legal rights of transgender people where the court found them.”
He stressed that the ruling authorizes states to adopt restrictions but does not require them to do so.
“It’s very important to emphasize that this isn’t a national mandate to ban trans athletes everywhere. It’s a fight that’s going to continue state by state, school by school … it really says that a state may discriminate, not that they must discriminate. States, schools, and athletic associations should be taking every step to ensure that athletic opportunities exist for transgender girls.”
Beyond athletics, Block said the opinion’s most important legal consequence may lie in its treatment of the Equal Protection Clause.
“What the court said is that even applying that heightened standard, we’re going to establish what’s effectively a new rule of the Equal Protection Clause, saying that you can’t bring this sort of as-applied challenge to a law that is valid for most people.”
Even so, he argued that the Court repeatedly framed transgender participation in sports as a policy issue for state governments rather than a constitutional mandate.
“Over and over and over again it talks about how states may exclude transgender girls, not that they must, and over and over and over again it says that this is a policy question that should be decided by the people in their different communities and their representatives.”
Block also rejected the idea that the ruling endorses the Trump administration’s broader efforts to restrict transgender rights.
“I have no doubt that the Trump administration will try to declare victory and say that this decision supports the lawless policies they’re pursuing, but I think anyone reading the decision can see otherwise.”
The White House nonetheless celebrated the decision, calling it a victory that would “protect women and girls.”
“The Court’s decision is a landmark victory for common sense, biological reality, and for the millions of women and girls who deserve a level playing field. By upholding laws protecting female athletic competition, the Court confirmed that states may preserve the fairness, safety, and equal opportunities that Title IX was enacted to guarantee.”
Medical researchers and LGBTQ advocates dispute the administration’s characterization of the evidence. A 2021 study published in the Journal of Sports Medicine found no scientific evidence for supporting these laws that categorically ban transgender women from participating in women’s sports.
Critics have also argued that enforcement of such laws could create new risks for athletes. Researchers have warned that sex-verification requirements may expose students to invasive examinations and discrimination.
A 2016 USA Today investigation found that at least 368 young gymnasts reported experiencing sexual abuse over a 20-year period. More than 100 coaches and gymnastics officials were accused of abuse, yet USA Gymnastics failed to track predatory coaches, allowing many to continue working with children. LGBTQ advocates argue that requiring athletes to undergo genital inspections or other forms of sex verification could place young athletes at even greater risk.
Advocacy organizations said the decision, while limited legally, will have significant real-world consequences for transgender youth.
Chris Mosier, a transgender athlete and board member of Point of Pride, said the ruling extends beyond sports.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today isn’t driven by fairness or dignity in sports. It’s an attack on our community’s right to live freely and authentically in every part of our lives. Young people, regardless of whether they’re cis or trans, deserve the joy of sports: to build friendships, to move their bodies and have fun on the field. To every trans athlete out there: you have a community standing behind you. No politician or law can take away your joy or power. We will get through this as our community has always done: together.”
Brian K. Bond, CEO of PFLAG National, emphasized that states remain free to adopt inclusive policies despite the Court’s decision.
“The Court rules best when it listens to the needs of marginalized people: trans people belong, on and off the field. While we celebrate the Court’s decision to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment and affirm that every person born in the United States is a citizen, the Court today added an asterisk to allow discrimination against transgender student athletes. Our country has been here before, and frankly, you would think this Court would have learned.”
“For PFLAG families, today’s decision in BPJ means that transgender athletes can continue to be affirmed for who they are in places where the law allows – and invigorates our LGBTQ+ and allied community to expand those protections. The parents, families, allies and LGBTQ+ people of PFLAG will continue to advocate for our trans loved ones to have the freedom to be themselves, everywhere. Trans people belong, and deserve to have access to the benefits of sport like everyone else.”
Allen Morris, policy director at the National LGBTQ Task Force, called the decision “devastating” but noted that it does not establish a nationwide sports ban.
“Today’s decision is devastating and the impact to clear. While this is not a nationwide ban on transgender participation in sports, the Court has given states a legal pathway to attempt to discriminate against trans individuals from full participation in school sports and all aspects of life.”
“This ruling is not just about sports: it’s about valuing and protecting the safety, security and constitutional rights of transgender people. By allowing states to draw a categorical line based on “biological sex,” the majority has chosen deference to exclusion and political beliefs over transgender students’ lived realities. There is already a dangerous rise in state-based violence growing across the country, and we’re overcoming this issue at each turn.”
Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, CEO of GLSEN, said the decision sends a broader message about transgender students’ place in schools.
“We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of this decision. This ruling represents another significant setback for transgender youth across the country, limiting their ability to fully engage in school life. Exclusion from these spaces shapes not only athletic access, but the broader message about who should be valued and included in our schools and societal ecosystem.”
“School sports are much more than competition. They are about belonging, forming a community, and the opportunity to grow and thrive alongside peers. Preventing youth from taking part in everyday activities undermines these fundamental values. We continue to see efforts to regulate discrimination under the guise of fairness, despite the lack of evidence that inclusive policies harm women’s sports. Access to these experiences is critical to students’ well-being and development.”
Massachusetts
EXCLUSIVE: Pressley rips State Department over LGBTQ rights rollbacks abroad
Massachusetts Democrat sent letter to Marco Rubio on Tuesday
Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the Trump-Vance administration to take urgent action to defend LGBTQ people across the globe, including in countries that are violating international human rights protections for LGBTQ individuals, putting at risk the safety of civilians and U.S. citizens working, living, and traveling abroad.
The letter, which the Washington Blade got an exclusive preview of prior to its sending, criticizes the Trump-Vance administration’s foreign policy direction at the State Department, arguing that it has moved to roll back LGBTQ protections that have long been part of the U.S.’s global human rights posture.
“Criminalizing LGBTQI+ individuals undermines democracy globally, as well as U.S. national security. Thus, we urge the State Department to take adequate measures to speak out against this criminalization and protect U.S. citizens abroad, including your staff, who may be detained or harmed under such laws, policies, and practices,” Pressley, a Democrat who represents roughly three-fourths of Boston and much of the city’s suburbs, said. “U.S. civilians, diplomatic personnel, military members, and nonprofit workers on the ground providing health care and disaster support will be affected and have their safety threatened if the U.S. does not take action. Even U.S. citizens perceived as being part of the LGBTQI+ community and traveling or living in those countries may be used as bargaining chips. This is a serious U.S. national security concern.”
In the letter, Pressley underscores what she describes as a global escalation in criminalization and violence against LGBTQ people, noting that one-third of countries still criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relationships and that 12 countries impose the death penalty. She argues that these conditions make LGBTQ travelers, diplomats, and aid workers particularly vulnerable, and calls on the State Department to reassert U.S. leadership in defending human rights abroad.
“Every person deserves to live authentically, yet several countries are violating international human rights laws that protect LGBTQI+ individuals,” she said. “One-third of countries around the world criminalize same-sex consensual acts between adults, and 12 countries allow LGBTQI+ people to be executed for being themselves.”
She also invokes the role the U.S. has played in promoting democratic values internationally, arguing that LGBTQ rights should remain central to that mission.
“Historically, the United States has played a critical diplomatic role in promoting democracy and freedom for all individuals, including LGBTQI+ persons. The U.S. should be a world leader promoting human rights domestically and globally.”
In a separate statement included in the letter, Pressley emphasized both the moral and national security implications of the issue, warning that anti-LGBTQ laws abroad are endangering lives and require a coordinated U.S. response.
“Every person deserves to show up as their true, authentic selves here in the United States and in countries across the globe — and that includes our LGBTQI+ community members,” she said.
“However, we are witnessing a deeply concerning rise in human rights violations and criminalization of LGBTQI+ individuals in other countries, endangering the lives of civilians and U.S. citizens. It is incumbent upon the United States to protect our LGBTQI+ siblings at home and abroad not only for our national security but for the safety and freedom of LGBTQI+ people everywhere.”
The letter goes on to press the State Department for concrete action, including a public reaffirmation of U.S. commitments to LGBTQ human rights, the restoration of LGBTQ analysis in annual country reports, and clearer guidance for Americans traveling abroad. It also seeks clarity on whether the department is tracking cases of U.S. citizens detained or harmed under anti-LGBTQ laws and what proactive steps are being taken to warn and protect LGBTQ travelers.
While she is not a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Pressley remains highly active in international affairs and global policy.
While the letter focuses on current policy, it also lands in the broader context of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s long anti-LGBTQ record. Rubio, a former senator from Florida, has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, calling the federal Respect for Marriage Act, which he voted against, a “stupid waste of time.” He has also expressed support for efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
During his time in the U.S. Senate and as a Florida political leader, Rubio has a long anti-LGBTQ track record. He defended state policies that LGBTQ advocates say target queer and transgender people, including Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law — commonly known by critics as “Don’t Say Gay” or “Don’t Say Trans” — which restricts classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.
He has also drawn criticism for his voting record, including a 0/100 score from the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard, reflecting opposition to expanding federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ people and for opposing adoption rights for same-sex couples.
Now serving as secretary of state, Rubio has overseen changes at the State Department that LGBTQ advocates say have reduced visibility and protections for transgender people, including the removal of trans-specific references from parts of the department’s public-facing materials and travel guidance. He has also been linked to broader restructuring efforts involving U.S. foreign assistance programs, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has historically supported global HIV prevention and LGBTQ rights initiatives in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America.
Those cuts and shifts, critics argue, have weakened programs like PEPFAR — credited with saving millions of lives worldwide — and reduced U.S. support for LGBTQ communities facing persecution abroad. The program is credited with saving at least 25 million lives.
Pressley’s own record stands in contrast, with a 100/100 on HRC’s Congressional Scorecard and a long history of legislative and advocacy work centered on LGBTQ equality. In recent years, she has secured federal funding for The Pryde, an affordable housing development for LGBTQ seniors in Boston, and has repeatedly pushed for expanded civil rights protections, including support for the Equality Act and the Equal Rights Amendment.
She has also advanced policy efforts aimed at LGBTQ survivors of violence, trans, and nonbinary individuals navigating credit and legal systems, and broader protections under housing and civil rights law — framing her work as part of a sustained effort to ensure LGBTQ people are included in federal policy at every level.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court upholds state laws banning trans athletes from sports teams
Justices heard oral arguments in two cases in January
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws that ban transgender athletes from school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.
The justices in January heard oral arguments in two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — that challenged laws in Idaho and West Virginia respectively.
Both cases question the constitutionality of laws from both states that block trans girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools — specifically if these bans violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports.
In a 6-3 decision made on party lines, the conservative justices asserted that laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating in sports programs at publicly funded schools does not violate either constitutionally protected right. Notably the ruling does not require any state to categorically bar transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams, or transgender boys from participating on boys’ sports teams.
In the majority for the case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion. It holds that schools can determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex. It also holds that West Virginia did not violate Title IX, which bars educational programs that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sex.
“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”
The Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kavanaugh’s majority opinion. It permissibly maintains female sports for biological females.
In his conclusion, Kavanaugh shares his belief of the importance of sports to women and girls but also a caution that “[n]o student-athlete on either side of the issue … deserves to be ostracized or vilified.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor opinion was concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justices Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor’s opinion.
In her dissent, Sotomayor explains that the majority opinion, while attempting to protect one groups Constitutional rights (those assigned women at birth), it puts another group’s constitutional rights (trans women) at its expense and in principle violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
“Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor wrote, eventually pointing to how the states had evaluated issues of trans sports participants prior to these bans as evidence of general omission. “The ban eliminated this individualized approach in favor of categorical exclusion.”
She also pointed out that these rules to not equally exclude, further bolstering her argument that the majority opinion was not created with the truest sense of the Equal Protection Clause at its center.
“Teams “designated” for “females” “shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.” Teams “designated” for “males” do not have the same restriction.”
Jackson wrote in her dissent that this ban does explicitly allow for sex discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding.
“A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ just as much as a cisgender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman’s behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth,” Jackson said. “Either way, the institution has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the case centers on B.P.J., a trans girl who was barred from competing on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams under West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, enacted in 2021. Under the law, it requires participation to be based on the athlete’s biological sex as indicated on their original birth certificate issued at the time of birth.
In Little v. Hecox, the details are slightly different, but ask the same 14th Amendment and Title IX questions but against Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. In this case Hecox, a trans woman and student at Boise State University wished to join the women’s cross-country team, but couldn’t under the law. She, with a cisgender athlete filed a suit against the governor, arguing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment explicitly protects their rights to participate on the woman’s team.
Trans rights activists have criticized the highest court in the land’s decision, highlighting it legally allows for discrimination based on gender identity — something they argue is a foundational element of the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law outright called the six conservative justices view of Equal Protection and Title IX as “wrong.”
“Today’s ruling gets it wrong. And it’s kids who will suffer for it. By upholding these blanket bans, the Supreme Court has allowed states to deny students even the chance to try out for a school team, simply because they are transgender,” Levi told the Washington Blade in a statement. “Policies that categorically bar students don’t advance fairness; they mandate exclusion.”
She continued, pointing out excluding some for the protection of others does not ensure fairness as the justices are arguing in their opinion.
“When a law bars every transgender girl regardless of age, hormones, or physiology, it isn’t about competitive fairness. It’s about keeping transgender kids out. We can protect women’s sports without doing that. Most of the country already does.”
Chris Erchull, senior staff attorney at GLAD Law, pointed out that while disappointing, the court does not mandate discrimination as the policy.
“This ruling does not require any state to follow West Virginia’s or Idaho’s cruel, overly-broad approach, and it does not mandate categorical bans on transgender students participating in school sports,” Erchull said. “It also leaves intact broader nondiscrimination protections for transgender students in education, including Title IX’s protections against sex discrimination for LGBTQ+ students. Discrimination has no place in our schools, and we can and should ensure that every student has the opportunity to learn, to thrive, and to know that they belong.”
Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, also emphasized the bad faith argument the majority opinion pushes for the sake of one exclusionary view of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” Buchert said. “Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports. Now, one population, transgender youth and collegians, are targeted for specific and baseless discrimination. We will not be deterred and will continue to fight back to secure the equal participation that all youth, including transgender youth, deserve.”
Joshua Block, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project also echoed the lasting negative impact this ruling will have for trans Americans.
“This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers.” Block said. “The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls. We will continue to advance the fundamental principle that all young people deserve equal opportunity to thrive and succeed.”
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, who himself is trans, issued a statement, reassuring that while upon face value the decision seems to undermine the rights of trans sports participants, it does not make that the rule.
“Today’s limited decision means that states and schools across the country still have the power to make reasonable rules to ensure fairness without banning all transgender girls,” said Minter. “Like other health or medical considerations in sports, reasonable policies for transgender student athletes rely on individual assessments rather than blanket bans. Every child deserves the chance to play sports with their friends and learn the lessons sports teach, including determination, resilience, and teamwork.”
Kelly O’Neill, an attorney for Legal Voice’s from Idaho also provided a statement to the Blade.
“It is profoundly unfair to deny a young person the benefits of teamwork and dedication because of who they are,” O’Neill said. “We should be removing barriers for girls and women in sports, not creating new ones.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson came to a similar conclusion.
“No kid — not my kid, not your kid, not any kid — deserves to be discriminated against. Yet this ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are. When politicians convince the public that any girl could be ‘the wrong kind of girl,’ they invite harassment, intimidation, invasive questioning, or even an inspection of their body by a total stranger,” Robinson wrote in a statement shared with the Blade. “It’s sadly just the latest decision by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court to roll back protections for marginalized communities and create a second class citizenship for millions of people. We are sacrificing the dignity, privacy, and safety of America’s young people to solve a problem that was manufactured and exploited for political gain … We must continue this fight with full force until freedom, justice and equal opportunity are not flimsy promises, but nationwide guarantees.”
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis, who presides over the world’s largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization, issued a statement on the ruling.
“This decision is at odds with the fundamental principles of fairness, freedom, and family that define our country and our communities. By allowing sweeping restrictions on a very small number of transgender students who simply wanted to participate in sports alongside their peers, the ruling creates an unnecessarily unfair playing field,” Ellis said. “Personal freedom and opportunity are best served when our legal protections expand access and guarantee safety for everyone. Today’s decision unfairly strips the rights of a few and threatens the ability of every girl and woman to play the sports they love.”
On the other side of the ideological isle, U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s women and girl trans sport ban. In a statement the Republican called the court’s conservative view of as a win for “women, fairness, and the Gem State.”
“Idaho was the first state in the nation to ban biological men from competing in women’s sports and uphold the opportunities Title IX promised more than 50 years ago,” Risch said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision affirms those protections and the generations of women who fought for fair, equal athletics.”
‘Transcendent’ a tough but important read
SMYAL receives $25,000 award for ‘courageous acts’
Queen Camilla meets with JK Rowling
Ethereal ‘Camp’ a moody allegory for queer shame
D.C. queer faith leaders commit to exist, resist, persist
Gay Calif. lawmaker confronted during San Francisco Trans Pride over Gaza stance
Tens of thousands participate in post-Orbán Budapest Pride march
Supreme Court upholds state laws banning trans athletes from sports teams
Longtime Blade staffer Stephen Rutgers steps down after 14 years
‘Girlfriends’ wanted for murder in Silver Spring arrested in Ohio
-
California5 days agoGay Calif. lawmaker confronted during San Francisco Trans Pride over Gaza stance
-
Hungary5 days ago
Tens of thousands participate in post-Orbán Budapest Pride march
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days ago
Supreme Court upholds state laws banning trans athletes from sports teams
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Longtime Blade staffer Stephen Rutgers steps down after 14 years
