Connect with us

National

Advocates eye immigration, ‘tax’ parity in next Congress

Plans surface for incorporating LGBT language in non-LGBT bills

Published

on

Jerrold Nadler, U.S. House of Representatives, congress, gay news, Washington Blade
Jerrold Nadler, U.S. House of Representatives, congress, gay news, Washington Blade

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of the strongest allies of the LGBT community in Congress, is optimistic about possible advances for LGBT equality in Congress next year. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

With free-standing LGBT supportive bills having little or no chance of passing in Congress next year due to the Republican-controlled House, advocates are developing plans to push for inserting LGBT-supportive language in broader, non-gay bills that enjoy bipartisan support, according to Capitol Hill insiders.

One bill under consideration for inclusion in a broader, non-LGBT measure is the Uniting American Families Act, which would provide equal immigration rights to foreign nationals who are same-sex partners of American citizens.

Another bill under similar consideration is the Tax Parity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, which would allow domestic partners to obtain the same tax exemption for health insurance and other health benefits provided by employers that married opposite-sex couples now enjoy.

“There are lots of ways you can do this,” said Allison Herwitt, legislative director of the Human Rights Campaign, which is mapping strategy for LGBT-supportive legislation in the 113th Congress, which convenes in January.

“You can do it in committee. You could try to get it put in the bill as the bill is being written,” Herwitt said. “It’s always better to have the pro-equality language that we want put in the bill before it gets to the floor because it’s easier to protect your language from being stripped than it is to affirmatively add language.”

Herwitt and representatives with other LGBT advocacy groups say that despite the positive developments for the LGBT community in the Nov. 6 election, the makeup of Congress has remained largely the same in terms of the support for at least seven LGBT related bills.

Among them is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which calls for banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. DOMA defines marriage under federal law as a union only between a man and a woman.

Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for the national LGBT group Immigration Equality, said the group is “highly optimistic” that the Uniting American Families Act will pass in the first half of next year as part of a broader immigration reform bill.

Ralls notes that President Obama, most Democratic lawmakers, and some congressional Republicans support an immigration reform measure. With the Hispanic vote going overwhelmingly to Obama and Democratic congressional candidates in the election two weeks ago, Republican leaders are much more likely to go along with a comprehensive immigration bill that’s strongly supported by the U.S. Latino community, Ralls said.

He said Immigration Equality is confident that the Senate, under the leadership of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, will support the inclusion of language from the Uniting American Families Act in an immigration reform bill.

“I am very hopeful that by next summer we could have a very significant win on this,” Ralls said.

Herwitt said she is similarly hopeful that the House and Senate will go along with including the tax parity measure for employer health benefits aimed at same-sex partners within a tax-related bill expected to come up next year.

R. Clarke Cooper, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, has said an LGBT-related bill most likely to gain Republican support in Congress is one that would redress unfair taxation on Americans, including LGBT Americans.

While HRC and Immigration Equality expressed optimism over the strategy of seeking to add gay bills to broader non-LGBT legislation, gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who’s retiring from Congress in January, said he’s far less optimistic about the prospect of any LGBT legislation while Republicans control the House for at least the next two years.

“The Republicans continue to be opposed to everything,” he told the Blade. “Look at the Republican platform. We certainly can block any negative stuff they may try to do,” he said.

“But with the Republicans controlling the House there’s zero chance of anything good happening…They’re negative on everything. They voted 98 percent against us on everything that came up,” he said. “They voted 90 some percent to reaffirm the Defense of Marriage Act. So there’s zero chance of them allowing anything.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of the strongest allies of the LGBT community in Congress, while agreeing that the GOP majority in the House remains “fiercely opposed to LGBT rights,” is optimistic about possible advances for LGBT equality in Congress next year.

“On the heels of tremendous momentum nationally – with the recent victory of marriage equality in four states, the president’s explicit support for LGBT rights, the tide of federal court cases backing equal protection for LGBT Americans, and a rapidly growing acceptance of the LGBT community – we have a great deal of validation to take with us into the 113th Congress,” Nadler said in a statement to the Blade.

Nadler said he, too, is optimistic about the prospects passing the gay immigration and tax parity measures as part of broader bills.

“We must prepare to work together, with Democrats and our GOP allies, to use every tool available to us to advance pro-equality legislation now,” he said.

HRC’s Herwitt, however, points out that the breakdown in the House between LGBT supportive and anti-LGBT members in the 113th Congress will make it difficult to pass LGBT legislation in any form.

“If you look at the makeup of the 113th Congress, they are going in with about 225 members who are solidly anti-LGBT,” she said, noting that most in this group are Republicans but some Democrats. About 184 House members, most Democrats, are supporters of LGBT equality and are expected to vote for LGBT bills, Herwitt said.

The remaining 26 are “in the middle,” with HRC and congressional allies uncertain how they will vote.

With 218 being the magic number needed to pass a bill, an amendment, or a discharge petition that could force GOP House leaders to bring a bill to the floor for a vote, LGBT advocates are not too far away from reaching that number, Herwitt and other advocates said.

But even if they were to convince House GOP leaders to allow an LGBT bill like ENDA to reach the floor for a vote, supporters don’t think they have the votes now to pass such a bill.

“Clearly, what we need to do during these next two years is work like hell to change the hearts and minds of the voters to make sure we have the support we need in the next election in 2014,”said Maryland transgender rights advocate Dana Beyer.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

California

LGBTQ community calls out Radio Korea over host’s homophobic comments

Station acknowledged controversy, but skirted accountability

Published

on

On Nov. 21st, Radio Korea CEO Michael Kim made an official video statement addressing the Nov. 3rd program. (Screen capture via Radio Korea/YouTube)

On Monday, Nov. 3, Radio Korea aired its regular morning talk show program, where one of its hosts, Julie An, discussed her lack of support for the LGBTQ community, citing her religious beliefs. She also went on to comment that gay people spread HIV and AIDS, and that conversation therapy — which has been linked to PTSD, suicidality, and depression — is a viable practice. Clips of this have since been taken down.

Radio Korea offers Korean language programming to engage local Korean American and Korean immigrant community members. Its reach is broad, as Los Angeles is home to the largest Korean population in the U.S, with over 300,000 residents. As An’s words echoed through the station’s airwaves, queer Korean community members took to social media to voice their concern, hurt, and anger.  

In a now-deleted Instagram post, attorney, activist, and former congressional candidate David Yung Ho Kim demanded accountability from the station. Writer and entertainer Nathan Ramos-Park made videos calling out Radio Korea and An, stating that her comments “embolden” people with misinformation, which has the ability to perpetuate “violence against queer people.”

Community health professional Gavin Kwon also worries about how comments like An’s increase stigma within the Korean immigrant community, which could lead to increased discrimination against queer people and their willingness to seek health care.  

Kwon, who works at a local clinic in Koreatown, told the Los Angeles Blade that comments like An’s prescribe being gay or queer as a “moral failure,” and that this commonly-held belief within the Korean immigrant community, particularly in older generations, strengthens the reticence and avoidance clients hold onto when asked about their gender or sexual orientation. 

“When you stigmatize a group, people don’t avoid the disease — they avoid care,” Kwon explained. “They avoid getting tested, avoid disclosing their status, and avoid talking openly with providers. Stigma pushes people into silence, and silence is the worst possible environment for managing any infectious disease.”

For weeks, Radio Korea did not offer a direct response to the public criticism. Its Instagram feed continued to be updated with shorts, featuring clips of its various hosts — including An. 

On Friday, Radio Korea CEO Michael Kim released an official statement on the station’s YouTube page. In this video, Michael Kim stated that An’s comments “included factual inaccuracies” and that the station “does not endorse or share the personal opinions expressed by individual hosts.” Michael Kim also stated that Radio Korea “welcomes members of the LGBT community to share their perspectives” in order to deepen understanding through dialogue. 

Afterwards, Michael Kim continued that though he acknowledges the “pain” felt by queer community members, he concluded: “I don’t think Radio Korea needs to apologize for what was said any more than Netflix should apologize for what Dave Chappelle says, or any more than Instagram or TikTok should apologize for what people say on their platforms.” 

Michael then offered a justification that An’s statements were “not part of a news report,” and that he was “disappointed” that David Yung Ho Kim, specifically, had been vocal about An’s comments. Michael Kim stated that he was the first person to interview David Yung Ho Kim in 2020 during his congressional campaign, and that he had provided the candidate a platform and opportunity to educate listeners about politics. 

“After all these years, the support Radio Korea has given him,” said Kim, “the support I personally gave him, even the support from other Radio Korea members who donated or even volunteered for him — he dishonestly tried to portray Radio Korea as being an anti-gay organization.”

Michael Kim went on to criticize David Yung Ho Kim’s purported “hurry to condemn others,” and also questioned if David has disowned his father, who he states is a pastor. “What kind of person is David Kim, and is this the kind of person we want in Congress?” Michael Kim asked viewers, noting that Koreatown is “only about three miles from Hollywood, and some people just like to perform.” 

At the end of the video, Michael Kim stated that his duty is to guard the legacy of the station. “My responsibility is to protect what was built before me and ensure that Radio Korea continues serving this community long after today’s momentary controversies disappear,” he said. 

For community members and advocates, this response was unsatisfactory. “The overall tone of the statement felt more defensive than accountable,” Kwon wrote to the Blade. “Instead of a sincere apology to the LGBTQ+ community that was harmed, the message shifts into personal grievances, political dynamics, and side explanations that don’t belong in an official response.”

Michael Kim’s portrayal of the criticism and calls to action by community members as a “momentary controversy” paints a clearer picture of the station’s stance — that the hurt felt and expressed by its queer community members is something that will simply pass until it is forgotten. An continues to be platformed at Radio Korea, and was posted on the station’s social media channels as recently as yesterday. The station has not outlined any other action since Michael Kim’s statement. 

Continue Reading

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Pentagon moves to break with Boy Scouts over LGBTQ and gender inclusion

Leaked memo shows Hegseth rejecting Scouting America’s shift toward broader inclusion

Published

on

Scouts for Equality march in the 2015 Capital Pride Parade. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Pentagon is preparing to sever its longstanding partnership with the Boy Scouts of America, now known as Scouting America.

In a draft memo to Congress obtained by NPR, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticizes the organization for being “genderless” and for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“The organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt no longer supports the future of American boys,” Hegseth wrote, according to Defense Department sources.

Girls have been eligible to join Cub Scouts (grades K–5) since 2018, and since 2019 they have been able to join Scouts BSA troops and earn the organization’s highest rank of Eagle Scout.

A statement on the Scouting America website says the shift toward including girls stemmed from “an expanding demand to join the Boy Scouts” and a commitment to inclusivity. “Throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries, it has undergone significant changes to become more inclusive of the adult staff and volunteers that drive its programming as well as of scouts and their families,” the organization says.

Part of that broader push included lifting its ban on openly gay members in 2014 and on openly gay adult leaders in 2015.

Once the Pentagon finalizes the break, the U.S. military will no longer provide medical and logistical support to the National Jamboree, the massive annual gathering of scouts in West Virginia that typically draws about 20,000 participants. The memo also states that the military will no longer allow scout troops to meet on U.S. or overseas installations, where many bases host active scout programs.

Hegseth’s memo outlines several justifications for the decision, arguing that Scouting America has strayed from its original mission to “cultivate masculine values” by fostering “gender confusion.” It also cites global conflicts and tightening defense budgets, claiming that deploying troops, doctors and vehicles to a 10-day youth event would “harm national security” by diverting resources from border operations and homeland defense.

“Scouting America has undergone a significant transformation,” the memo states. “It is no longer a meritocracy which holds its members accountable to meet high standards.”

The Pentagon declined NPR’s request for comment. A “War Department official” told the outlet that the memo was a “leaked document that we cannot authenticate and that may be pre-decisional.”

The leaked memo comes roughly one month after nearly every major journalism organization walked out of the Pentagon in protest of new rules requiring reporters to publish only “official” documents released by the department — effectively banning the use of leaked or unpublished materials.

President Donald Trump, who serves as the honorary head of Scouting America by virtue of his office, praised the Jamboree audience during his 2017 visit to West Virginia. “The United States has no better citizens than its Boy Scouts. No better,” he said, noting that 10 members of his Cabinet were former Scouts.

Hegseth was never a scout. He has said he grew up in a church-based youth group focused on memorizing Bible verses. As a Fox News host last year, he criticized the Scouts for changing their name and admitting girls.

“The Boy Scouts has been cratering itself for quite some time,” Hegseth said. “This is an institution the left didn’t control. They didn’t want to improve it. They wanted to destroy it or dilute it into something that stood for nothing.”

NBC News first reported in April that the Pentagon was considering ending the partnership, citing sources familiar with the discussions. In a statement to NBC at the time, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said, “Secretary Hegseth and his Public Affairs team thoroughly review partnerships and engagements to ensure they align with the President’s agenda and advance our mission.”

The Scouting America organization has has long played a role in military recruiting. According to numbers provided by Scouting America, many as 20 percent of cadets and midshipmen at the various service academies are Eagle Scouts. Enlistees who have earned the Eagle rank also receive advanced entry-level rank and higher pay — a practice that would end under the proposed changes.

Continue Reading

The White House

Trans workers take White House to court over bathroom policy

Federal lawsuit filed Thursday

Published

on

Protesters outside of House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) office in the Cannon House Office Building last year protesting a similar bathroom ban. (Washington Blade photo by Christopher Kane)

Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union, two organizations focused on protecting Americans’ constitutional rights, filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday in federal court challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s bathroom ban policies.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of LeAnne Withrow, a civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard, challenges the administration’s policy prohibiting transgender and intersex federal employees from using restrooms aligned with their gender. The policy claims that allowing trans people in bathrooms would “deprive [women assigned female at birth] of their dignity, safety, and well-being.”

The lawsuit responds to the executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. It alleges that the order and its implementation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Title VII protects trans workers from discrimination based on sex.

Since its issuance, the executive order has faced widespread backlash from constitutional rights and LGBTQ advocacy groups for discriminating against trans and intersex people.

The lawsuit asserts that Withrow, along with numerous other trans and intersex federal employees, is forced to choose between performing her duties and being allowed to use the restroom safely.

“There is no credible evidence that allowing transgender people access to restrooms aligning with their gender identity jeopardizes the safety or privacy of non-transgender users,” the lawsuit states, directly challenging claims of safety risks.

Withrow detailed the daily impact of the policy in her statement included in the lawsuit.

“I want to help soldiers, families, veterans — and then I want to go home at the end of the day. At some point in between, I will probably need to use the bathroom,” she said.

The filing notes that Withrow takes extreme measures to avoid using the restroom, which the Cleveland Clinic reports most people need to use anywhere from 1–15 times per day depending on hydration.

“Ms. Withrow almost never eats breakfast, rarely eats lunch, and drinks less than the equivalent of one 17 oz. bottle of water at work on most days.”

In addition to withholding food and water, the policy subjects her to ongoing stress and fear:

“Ms. Withrow would feel unsafe, humiliated, and degraded using a men’s restroom … Individuals seeing her enter the men’s restroom might try to prevent her from doing so or physically harm her,” the lawsuit states. “The actions of defendants have caused Ms. Withrow to suffer physical and emotional distress and have limited her ability to effectively perform her job.”

“No one should have to choose between their career in service and their own dignity,” Withrow added. “I bring respect and honor to the work I do to support military families, and I hope the court will restore dignity to transgender people like me who serve this country every day.”

Withrow is a lead Military and Family Readiness Specialist and civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard. Previously, she served as a staff sergeant and has received multiple commendations, including the Illinois National Guard Abraham Lincoln Medal of Freedom.

The lawsuit cites the American Medical Association, the largest national association of physicians, which has stated that policies excluding trans individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have harmful effects on health, safety, and well-being.

“Policies excluding transgender individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have detrimental effects on the health, safety and well-being of those individuals,” the lawsuit states on page 32.

Advocates have condemned the policy since its signing in January and continue to push back against the administration. Leaders from ACLU-D.C., ACLU of Illinois, and Democracy Forward all provided comments on the lawsuit and the ongoing fight for trans rights.

“We cannot let the Trump administration target transgender people in the federal government or in public life,” said ACLU-D.C. Senior Staff Attorney Michael Perloff. “An executive order micromanaging which bathroom civil servants use is discrimination, plain and simple, and must be stopped.”

“It is absurd that in her home state of Illinois, LeAnne can use any other restroom consistent with her gender — other than the ones controlled by the federal government,” said Michelle Garcia, deputy legal director at the ACLU of Illinois. “The Trump administration’s reckless policies are discriminatory and must be reversed.”

“This policy is hateful bigotry aimed at denying hardworking federal employees their basic dignity simply because they are transgender,” said Kaitlyn Golden, senior counsel at Democracy Forward. “It is only because of brave individuals like LeAnne that we can push back against this injustice. Democracy Forward is honored to work with our partners in this case and is eager to defeat this insidious effort to discriminate against transgender federal workers.”

Continue Reading

Popular