National
Maine marriage campaign optimistic going into referendum
Polls indicate majority of voters would support ballot measure to allow same-sex marriage.
A Mainers United for Marriage volunteer speaks with likely voters in Sanford (Photo courtesy of Mainers United for Marriage)
SCARBOROUGH, Maine – Portland resident Ellen Ward never thought she would find herself speaking with fellow voters in support of marriage rights for same-sex couples.
The self-described introvert changed her mind, however, in 2009 when she listened to gays and lesbians and others testify in support of a same-sex marriage bill during a legislative hearing in Augusta, the state capital.
“They were leading very what most people call normal lives and just wanted to be able to affirm their love and commitment in the same way that other people got too,” Ward told the Washington Blade as she canvassed a suburban Portland neighborhood in the rain on Thursday afternoon. “And I was just really impressed with people standing up and testifying about that and churches testifying about that.”
Nearly three years after Maine voters repealed the state’s same-sex marriage law that then-Gov. John Baldacci signed, supporters of nuptials for gays and lesbians remain confident that a ballot question that would allow them to tie the knot will pass.
“What’s so unique about Maine is because we’re the first state to ever go on the offensive and bring the issue directly to the voters; we’ve been able to dictate our own timeline,” Matt McTighe, campaign manager of Mainers United for Marriage, the group supporting Question 1, told the Blade during an interview at his Portland office on Friday. “There was never a ticking clock. Every time this has come up before when it’s defensive it’s always in the current — something happens, a precipitating action, a court case, a legislative victory whatever. Our opponents then do something to undermine that or write something into the constitution or whatever. And now we’re on their turf. Now we’re playing defense on their side of the field.”
Voters in 2009 repealed the same-sex marriage law by a 53-47 percent margin. McTighe, a former Human Rights Campaign staffer who has worked on marriage efforts in Massachusetts and in other New England states for MassEquality and the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, described the 2012 campaign in Maine as a “night and day kind of difference” from that run ahead of the 2009 referendum.
“It’s always been designed from the ground up as a campaign for voters,” he said. “We didn’t have to worry about the legislature. We weren’t thinking about a court case or anything like that. Right from the beginning we’ve tried to figure out who are the voters we need to be talking to, let’s employ some of the most sophisticated modeling and tactics that have ever been applied to the marriage movement, let’s bring in the best people, the best consultants, the best field organizers, the best team and put together a plan and a model to figure out who we need to talk to.”
Voter: Same-sex marriage “doesn’t really affect me”
Maine is one of four states with either a same-sex marriage referendum or a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman on the ballot next month. The Maine Freedom to Marry Coalition in January submitted more than 105,000 signatures to the Secretary of State in order to bring the issue before voters.
Polls indicate a majority of Maine voters would support a ballot measure to allow same-sex marriage. (Photo by Michael K. Lavers)
A Portland Press Herald poll conducted between Sept. 12-16 shows Question 1 leads by a 57-36 percent margin. A Public Policy Polling survey late last month indicates 52 percent of likely voters support the ballot measure, compared to 44 percent who oppose it and four percent who remain undecided.
Several Scarborough residents with whom Ward spoke said they would support Question 1.
“I’ll probably vote for it,” said one teenager who turns 18 on Nov. 1. He told Ward that he also works with a lesbian. “It doesn’t really affect me. I’m not really 100 percent for it, but I have nothing against it. Not to put it the wrong way but I really don’t care. Do whatever you want. If anything it’ll be better for the economy.”
A woman who lives on a nearby cul-de-sac told Ward that she plans to vote against the ballot question.
“I personally don’t have a problem with you getting together, but I’m not in favor of calling it marriage,” she said. “It’s a sacrament. To redefine marriage, I would vote no.”
Ward conceded the woman’s position against marriage rights for same-sex couples was “discouraging.” She did acknowledge, however, that she feels that her support of basic rights for gays and lesbians was encouraging.
“People have come a long way on that issue, certainly than even 20 years ago,” said Ward, who recalled a telephone conversation she had a couple of months ago with a 90-year-old woman who marched against racial segregation in the 1960s. She initially said she opposed nuptials for gays and lesbians, but Ward said she suddenly changed her mind when she realized the parallels between the civil rights and same-sex marriage movements. “I just feel there are so many people that we talk to these days who are completely supportive.”
Marriage remains “personal” for voters
Six Mainers United for Marriage ads continue to air on local television stations. These include one that features four generations of a family from the Downeast town of Machias and another that spotlights firefighters who support nuptials for gays and lesbians. Protect Marriage Maine, the group opposing Question 1, debuted their first two television ads on Monday.
“You have to make this about the voter themselves. You need to give them a personal reason to connect with the gay people that they know in their lives, to think about this issue in a way that they haven’t thought of before,” said McTighe, who is also a firefighter in the southern coastal Maine town of York. He applauded President Obama for supporting marriage rights for same-sex couples, but stressed the issue remains what he described as a deeply personal one for each potential voter. “You don’t just change your mind because somebody else did. You have to change your mind because somebody made it personal to you. Somebody showed you what is at stake. And also gave you an opportunity to have your questions and concerns addressed. That’s why the grassroots approach has been so unique, to be able to go out and have door-to-door with everyone in our persuadable universe, those people we identified early on.”
Mainers United for Marriage reported to the state Commission on Ethics and Election Practices late on Friday that it has raised slightly more than $3.35 million so far this year, compared with the $429,794.32 that Protect Marriage Maine has pulled in. McTighe told the Blade that he would like to raise another $750,000 to $1 million “to keep pace with” the amount of airtime that the National Organization for Marriage has reserved on the state’s television stations in the weeks leading up to Election Day.
“Now is sort of the crunch time,” he said. “We’ve been prepping for his. We’ve been planning for this so now we feel like we’re prepared for everything. When they come out with one attack, we’ve got plan A. When they come out with a different attack, we’ve got plan B. We can pull it as needed. We can execute as we need to, as long as we have the resources.”
McTighe said another challenge that the campaign faces of potential complacency.
“Because we are doing really well in the polls and because people are seeing all this great stuff and people love our TV ads and all this other stuff and we’re getting all this great earned media, it’s almost too easy for people to say, well they don’t need my help. They don’t me to volunteer. They don’t need me to donate. They don’t need me to write a check. They’ve got 57 percent in the polls. Well I don’t care as much now,” he said. “But the fact is we’ve never won before. Whether that 57 percent is solid or soft or who knows, we’ll see, but we’ve never won. Until we win, we should just assume that our opponents will dump whatever resources they need. We should just assume that they will stop at nothing. And we should assume that no lead is safe until we can actually win and hold one for just once, at least once. Then we can start saying okay well is a point where you’re safe. We’re just not there yet. We’re not there in any of the states.”
In spite of these potential hurdles, McTighe remains optimistic that Mainers United for Marriage will be able to successfully respond to Question 1 opponents’ ads and statements against nuptials for gays and lesbians during the final weeks of the campaign.
“We feel extremely well positioned to deal with anything they throw our way because we’ve had two and a half years to prepare for everything,” he said. “That is what’s so unique about Maine.”
Ward agreed.
“People have had a lot more chance to think about this,” she said, noting the passage of same-sex marriage laws in New York and other states since the 2009 vote. “It’s very much on people’s minds and people are talking about it now. It’s not so unheard of. I think people are just kind of more getting used to the idea and saying, oh, I have people in my family that this [impacts] or I have neighbors and I think they’re very nice people and wow, you know they want to get married. A lot of people had never thought of that before. I think part of it is people are getting used to the idea. And people who are already on board are saying of course, of course this matters. And more and more they want to see this happen. It just seems a no brainer to them.”
A Mainers United for Marriage volunteer speaks with a likely voter in Brunswick (Photo courtesy of Mainers United for Marriage)
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Minimal version of ‘Streetcar Named Desire’ heading to Dupont Underground
Comings & Goings
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
Vance speaks at Orbán rally in Hungary
LGBTQ groups condemn Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
