Connect with us

National

5 questions as Supreme Court considers marriage

Justices poised to issue most significant rulings on gay rights

Published

on

Supreme Court, marriage equality, gay marriage, same sex marriage, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, gay news, Washington Blade
Supreme Court, Ted Olson, National Equality March, Edith Windsor, DOMA, Prop 8, Proposition 8, gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, gay news, Washington Blade

There are many legal questions to ponder as observers await the Supreme Court decision on Prop 8 and DOMA. (Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)

In the wake of last week’s announcement that the Supreme Court will hear lawsuits challenging California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, observers over the next several months will wait on pins and needles for what may be the most significant ruling on LGBT rights in history.

Here are five questions that advocates are pondering as they await decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to Prop 8, and Windsor v. United States, the lawsuit against DOMA.

1. Will the Supreme Court overturn same-sex marriage bans in all states?

By taking up the Prop 8 case, as opposed to letting stand a more narrow ruling from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that applied only to California, the court has an opportunity to make a ruling that not only says the same-sex marriage ban in California is unconstitutional, but marriage bans in all states throughout the country are as well.

David Boies, a co-counsel representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, said during a conference call last week justices would produce a ruling that’s more expansive than California if they decide the Prop 8 case on its merits and find it violates the U.S. Constitution.

“That would mean there would be a fundamental right to marry in every state in the country because obviously the federal constitution applies to every state in the country,” Boies said.

Much in the same way that the 1967 ruling in Loving v. Virginia ended bans on interracial marriage in all states, such a sweeping decision from the Supreme Court in Prop 8 would require the 41 states that don’t have same-sex marriage on the books to allow gay couples to marry. Not only would marriage equality be restored to California, it would be extended to the estimated 646,000 same-sex couples throughout the country.

Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, said this outcome is one of several possible ways the Supreme Court could rule if justices find a constitutional right to marry under either the due process clause or the equal protection clause.

“Either finding that we share the fundamental right or finding that it violates equal protection generally to not allow same-sex couples to marry when different-sex couples can would extend the right to marry to all 50 states,” Davidson said.

Still, the general consensus among legal experts is that the court isn’t likely to reach this outcome when it’s possible for them to reach a ruling on more narrow grounds that would just affect California or a limited number of states.

Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a law professor at Loyola Law School, posited that since California allows domestic partnerships but not same-sex marriage, the court could produce a ruling requiring all eight states that offer either domestic partnerships or civil unions to provide full marriage rights for gay couples. Those states are California, Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada and New Jersey.

“The middle course would be one that says states that have allowed same-sex couples to have comprehensive domestic partnerships or civil unions don’t have an adequate justification for preventing them from marrying,” NeJaime said. “That would affect more than just California, but it wouldn’t affect every state.”

2. What happens if the Supreme Court upholds both Prop 8 and DOMA?

In what he might be considered the opposite scenario compared to the situation described above, the Supreme Court could also deal a devastating blow to LGBT advocates by upholding either or both Prop 8 and DOMA.

A loss for LGBT advocates in the court in the Prop 8 case would mean they would need another voter-initiated ballot campaign to repeal the measure ballot, much like the divisive and expensive 2008 campaign that led to its passage by voters.

John O’Connor, the newly appointed executive director of Equality California, said “everything’s on the table” for discussion in the event that the Supreme Court determines the ban on same-sex marriage in California is constitutional.

“The question about would we go back to the ballot ā€” it’s absolutely a possibility,” O’Connor said. “The timing and the tactics and all of that remain to be determined between now and the time the decision comes down but it’s absolutely a priority for us to plan that.”

Asked whether he’d rule out the possibility of going back to the ballot in 2014 at this point, O’Connor replied, “Absolutely not. I wouldn’t rule it out. That’s definitely a possibility that we’ll be considering.”

Similarly, a decision upholding DOMA would mean that Congress would have to act to repeal DOMA ā€” mostly likely using the Respect for Marriage Act as the vehicle to undo the law. That would be a difficult task as long as Republicans remain in control of the House.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the chief sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, said in a statement he intends to work with Congress to build support for the legislation even before the court renders a decision on DOMA.

“As the Supreme Court reviews DOMA, I will continue to spearhead the participation of Members of Congress who believe that DOMA is unconstitutional in the Windsor case,” Nadler said. “At the same time, I will keep working with my colleagues to increase support for the Respect for Marriage Act, my bill to repeal DOMA and remove official discrimination from our legal code.”

3. Will the U.S. government weigh in on the Prop 8 lawsuit?

Amid news that the Supreme Court will take up the Prop 8 lawsuit, a new call has emerged for the Obama administration to weigh in on the lawsuit to assert a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.

Ted Olson, co-counsel for plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case, said during the conference call last week that participation from the Obama administration in the litigation would have “great effect” on the outcome of the case.

ā€œI would hate to predict what the United States government is doing, but given the stand the president of the United States and the attorney general of the United States made with respect to marriage equality, we would certainly hope that they would participate,ā€ Olson added.

Although President Obama asserted his personal view in May that same-sex couples should be able to marry, the Obama administration hasn’t yet answered the question of whether that’s a guaranteed right under the Constitution. The Obama administration could participate by filing a friend-of-the-court brief along with other parties, or less likely, by asking to intervene in the case.

Asked Tuesday during a White House press briefing about the Obama administration’s position on the Prop 8 case, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney declined to comment, saying, “For comment on the court’s actions on that case, I would point you to the Department of Justice. As you know the administration is not a party in that case, and I just have nothing more for you on it.”

Following the briefing, Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokesperson, told the Washington Blade, “No updates at this point.”

Richard Socarides, a gay New York advocate who’s called on Obama to take an active role in supporting marriage equality, said arguing in favor of the constitutional right to marry ā€” for all states and not just California ā€” is “a logical extension” of the position already articulated by the administration when it determined DOMA was unconstitutional.

“If you apply that [heightened scrutiny] test that they advocate to any of the 30 states that have constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage, then all of those state amendments go out the window,” Socarides said. “So, obviously, that’s very important to us, and that’s the government position, and I think it’s important that they say so clearly rather than trying to duck it.”

Additionally, Socarides said the Obama administration won’t be able to run from the issue because justices will likely ask U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. or whomever is representing the administration during oral arguments about its position on Prop 8.

“They’re kidding themselves if they don’t think some judge isn’t going to ask them,” Socarides said. “During the argument of the DOMA case, [Samuel] Alito or [Clarence] Thomas or [John] Roberts or [Antonin] Scalia is going to say to them, ‘If we apply the test you are advocating to Proposition 8, what would happen?’ They’re going to get asked this question. That’s what’s silly about this.”

Lambda’s Davidson agreed that a friend-of-the-court brief from the Obama administration would have an impact on the Supreme Court.

“They’re more likely to read a brief from the solicitor general than from other parties,” Davidson said. “And I think that they care what another branch of government says to them, so I think it will be significant. I don’t think they will decide a certain way just because the executive branch says so. They will make up their minds, but to have one branch of government telling another what they think the outcome would be, they’d pay attention to that.”

But the notion that participation from the Obama administration would be helpful to convincing justices to overturn Prop 8 isn’t universal.

Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, said the Justice Department has articulated that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny and an additional brief wouldn’t have much sway.

“I don’t really think it makes much difference, frankly, to the court,” Hunter said. “The political alignment of the Obama administration is very clear on this, so I don’t really think it’ll make much difference.”

4. What happens if the Supreme Court denies standing to anti-gay forces in the lawsuit?

In addition to announcing that it would take up cases challenging Prop 8 and DOMA, the Supreme Court also called for attorneys involved in the lawsuit to answer questions about whether certain parties involved in the lawsuit have standing to present their views before the court. The standing issue will be resolved as part of the final ruling the Supreme Court makes before its term expires in June.

For the Prop 8 case, the standing question is singular: Do anti-gay groups that helped pass Prop 8 at the ballot have the right to defend the law in court because California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris have declined to do so? That was the opinion of the Ninth Circuit, which determined ProtectMarriage.com could defend the law after the group’s standing was certified by the California Supreme Court.

But in the DOMA case, there are issues of standing on both sides. The court asks parties to respond to whether the court has standing to hear the DOMA case because the U.S. Justice Department, the party that won the case at the district court, appealed the case as opposed to the losing side. Additionally, the court asks if the House Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group ā€” which took up defense of DOMA after the Obama administration announced it would no longer do so ā€” has standing to defend the law.

The questions open up the possibility for the Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8 on technical grounds without getting into the merits of the anti-gay ban. It could assert that anti-gay groups don’t have standing to defend the law, nullifying the Ninth Circuit decision and leaving in place retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision finding that same-sex couples in California have a guaranteed right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.

NeJaime said asking about the standing issue in the Prop 8 case may be an attempt for the court to open the door to striking down the same-sex marriage ban without ruling on the merits of the case.

“This court has been interested in standing for a long time,” NeJaime said. “The conservatives on the court have consistently cut back standing, so it’s not shocking to me that the court is at least interested in that standing question, and I also think it could be slightly strategic so that there is this other issue in the case that would allow the court to avoid a ruling on the merits if they decided that they don’t want to do that.”

The question of what would happen if parties lack standing in the DOMA case gets a little murkier because the issue affects both the plaintiffs (the Justice Department) and the defendants (BLAG).Ā On Tuesday, the Supreme Court announced that it had hired Vicki Jackson, a Harvard lawyer, to argue that neither the Obama administration nor BLAG have standing to petition the court in the case.

Still, the consensus among legal experts is that justices would likely conclude both parties have standing in the DOMA case to evaluate the law on its merits, even though many raised questions about BLAG because it’s a five-member committee and not reflective of the position of Congress, or even the House, as a whole.

Hunter said precedent exists for the Supreme Court to hear a case in which the Justice Department has declined to defend a law and members of Congress have taken up defense of the statute instead.

“The reason here that I think five members of the court will reach the merits in the DOMA case is that the practical necessity for them to do so is just overwhelming,” Hunter said. “I just don’t see them allowing a federal statute to just kind of evaporate in this situation without consideration of the merits. I’m cautiously optimistic that when they do consider the merits, they will find DOMA unconstitutional, but my hunch is that the standing question is more likely to end up being important in the Prop 8 case than it will be in the DOMA case.”

5. What would happen if the Supreme Court applied heightened scrutiny to its ruling?

Another outcome in the cases that would be beneficial to the LGBT community is a determination by the Supreme Court that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has never declared that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny as it has for race, national origin, gender and alienage even in high-profile cases such as Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws throughout the country, and Romer v. Evans, which struck down Colorado’s anti-gay Amendment 2. Still, the belief that sexual orientation laws merit this level of scrutiny is the view held by the Obama administration and the U.S. Second Circuit of Appeals, the court from which the DOMA case was appealed.

Legal experts said such a ruling from the Supreme Court in which justices applied heightened scrutiny would benefit lawsuits challenging other anti-gay laws throughout the country ā€” whether they be the Arizona law stripping away domestic partner benefits from state employees or the Tennessee law prohibiting municipalities from passing non-discrimination ordinances.

While it seems that making a decision on laws related to sexual orientation are subjected to heightened scrutiny would automatically institute the first outcome enumerated in this piece ā€” the invalidation of all restrictions throughout the country ā€” legal experts say that might not be the case.

NeJaime said the application of heightened scrutiny in the DOMA case would make it more likely for them to strike down Prop 8 as well, but it wouldn’t necessarily apply to same-sex marriage bans elsewhere.

“They could apply heightened scrutiny to Prop 8, which they could frame as a very specific question, and then it would take a future case to apply heightened scrutiny to some marriage ban, like a ban in Arkansas where there’s no domestic partnership,” NeJaime said.

Some observers have speculated that the Supreme Court selected the Windsor case as the vehicle to determine the constitutionality of DOMA because that’s the only case in which a federal appeals court has ruled the anti-gay law is unconstitutional by applying heightened scrutiny to the statute.

But Hunter disputed that notion and said the decision to take up Windsor is the result of U.S. Associate Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in the other lawsuit in which an appeals court made a ruling against DOMA ā€” the consolidated case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health & Human Services ā€” when she was U.S. solicitor general and the Obama administration was still defending the law in court.

“What makes the most sense is to have all nine justices participate in that decision, and Kagan can’t participate in Gill.” Hunter said. “I think they were waiting for a second court of appeals to produce an opinion, and I think they would have taken whatever case wasn’t Gill. It was sort of anything but Gill, and that’s purely because of the Kagan recusal problem.”

Supreme Court, gay marriage, same sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act,

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Oklahoma

Medical examine releases final autopsy on Nex Benedict’s death

Okla. high school student died by suicide in February

Published

on

Nex Benedict (Family photo)

The Oklahoma Medical Examiner’s Office released the full report Wednesday on the results of its investigation into the death of Nex Benedict, a 16-year-old transgender teen whose death has become a hot button topic in ongoing national discourse over transphobic and homophobic bullying in public school settings.

Earlier this month the medical examiner’s office released the first page of the report stating that Benedictā€™s death was caused by an overdose of Benadryl and Prozac, and ruled the death a suicide.

Owasso Police Department Lt. Nick Boatman said in a statement to the media at the time of the release of the initial finding: ā€œFrom the beginning of this investigation, Owasso Police observed many indications that this death was the result of suicide. However, investigators did not wish to confirm that information without the final results being presented by the Oklahoma Medical Examiners Office.ā€

The Owasso Police Department released body cam footage from the interview conducted by the Owasso High School resource officer taken at the emergency room, investigating the attack on Benedict by three other female juveniles earlier that day in a school bathroom.

Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler released a statement last week that said no criminal charges will be filed in the death of the 16-year-old Owasso High School trans student.

In part the district attorney said because the finding by the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner precluded the possibility that the death was caused directly from the physical altercation at the school the day prior to the teen’s dying.

According to the district attorney, Benedict had written notes talking about suicide but did not reference the fight or incidents at school. Kunzweiler stated that the notes are personal to Benedictā€™s family and will not be released.

16-year-old trans teen Nex Benedict being recorded on Owasso Police Department body cam footage at the emergency room after he was attacked in a bathroom at Owasso High School speaking with the Owasso High School resource officer.

The report also detailed injuries sustained in the fight from the day before, including several small cuts and bruises on their face and body. Benedict also had a 4×3 inch bruise on his chest from resuscitation efforts. The medical examiner also found yellowing bruises on Benedict’s arms, legs and torso that were healing before the time of the fight. The medical examiner’s office also found evidence of self-inflicted wounds on the arm.

Several Oklahoma-based LGBTQ organizations responded to the release of the full autopsy report along with national LGBTQ advocacy groups GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign and the Rainbow Youth Project.

ā€œAs our community continues to grieve and remember Nex, itā€™s clearer than ever that everyone from Oklahomaā€™s State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters to Owasso High School staff members to the Owasso Police Department, Tulsa District Attorney, and unaccredited-since-2009 state medical examinerā€™s office failed to deliver justice for Nex Benedict and Nexā€™s loved ones,” said Nicole McAfree, executive director of Freedom Oklahoma.

“A harm doubled by the continued lack of respect for the tribal law enforcement who should be involved in a case that involves the death of an Indigenous person on reservation land. As we approach the end of the Oklahoma legislative session, lawmakers should take the opportunity to send a message of adamant opposition to anti-2SLGBTQ+ legislation and policies; and support for measures that enable more empathy, kindness and compassion, not less. Nex should be alive, and the very least we can do in Nexā€™s memory is demonstrate our commitment to building a better world that makes it impossible for this heartbreaking tragedy to happen again,ā€ McAfree added.

Oklahoma Pride Alliance President Kylan L. Durant said; ā€œTodayā€™s news is the latest disappointing development in Nex Benedictā€™s tragic story. The best way to honor Nexā€™s memory now is by taking tangible steps to secure meaningful policies and platforms that make life better for all LGBTQ and 2STGNC+ youth. All Oklahomans deserve to live in a world that treats us with full dignity and respect, and where we can access spaces that allow us to live as our honest, authentic selves. We will never stop advocating for equality and justice in honor of Nex and too many others who left us too soon.ā€

The Rainbow Youth Project reported an uptick in crisis calls from Oklahoma since Benedictā€™s death:

  • 1,097 calls from Oklahoma in February.
  • 824 calls from Oklahoma in March so far.
  • Note that the average for the state is 357 per month.
  • Oklahoma youth reaching out to Rainbow Youth Project reported experiencing anti-LGBTQ bullying and specifically called out Walters:
    • 82 percent reported bullying.
    • 62 percent cited anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from Walters.

More than 350 organizations signed a letter one month agoĀ calling for the Walters’ removal following his long history of leadership failures and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.

ā€œSince Nexā€™s death, the crisis lines at the Rainbow Youth Project continue to increase in calls and outreach from young people who feel discouraged and hopeless. Itā€™s incumbent upon all of us to secure safety and well-being for young people, especially those who are most at risk of being bullied and singled out,” said Christopher Sederburg, leader of the Rainbow Youth Project’s Transgender Action Committee. “Itā€™s hard enough to be a young person in the world today without worrying about doing something as simple as attending school safely. Nexā€™s death is a tremendous loss and we must do everything in our power to prevent similar tragedies from taking place in the future. Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters and the Oklahoma Department of Education must enact change and do right by all students.ā€

GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis in a statement released after the report was made public said:

“This report cannot be seen as a conclusion of the investigation into the death of a teenager who should still be here today. Oklahoma’s supposed leaders must still provide answers to the public about the state-sponsored bullying by legislation, the inadequate response to violence in a school bathroom, and all the failures to keep Nex safe that continue to endanger LGBTQ and 2STGNC+ people in Oklahoma. GLAAD continues to call for an independent investigation to resolve the systemic failures that led to Nexā€™s death. Our hearts remain with Nexā€™s family, with Oklahomaā€™s incredible 2STGNC+ and equality advocates and all LGBTQ youth who deserve to grow up in peace and safety.ā€

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, released the following statement: 

ā€œThe full report does little to fill in the gaps in information about that day or the more than a year of bullying and harassment that led up to it. It does not answer the questions of so many in Oklahoma and across the country. We continue to support the calls from Nexā€™s family for an independent investigation.

Young people in Oklahoma and across the country deserve to be safe and respected in school. This includes young people who may dress differently, speak differently, or identify differently from you. Whatā€™s clear from Nexā€™s death, and from what weā€™ve heard from so many students and parents in Owasso and across the state, is that this is not the case. Instead, we have seen the very adults who should be working to protect Oklahomaā€™s kids actively foster the hostile environment that makes students unsafe.

The release of todayā€™s report does not change the fact that LGTBQ+ students in Oklahoma are not safe at school. And it does not change our continued calls for justice and accountability.  We reiterate our call for a full and complete investigation into the district, state Supt. Ryan Walters, the Oklahoma State Department of Education and into their response after Nex was attacked.ā€

On March 1, the U.S. Department of Education informed Robinson that the department will open an investigation in response to HRCā€™s letter regarding Owasso Public Schools and its failure to respond appropriately to sex-based harassment that may have contributed to the tragic death of Benedict.

This investigation was triggered by a formal complaint made last week by Robinson, who wrote to U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona and asked his department to use the enforcement mechanisms at its disposal to prevent similar tragedies from taking place in the future and to help hold accountable those responsible for Benedictā€™s tragic death.

Rainbow Youth Project USA Executive Director Lance Preston echoed his fellow non-profit CEOs at GLAAD and HRC, telling the Washington Blade:

“In a unified effort with Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD, Rainbow Youth Project USA is calling for an independent autopsy to ensure a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the youth’s death. 

Rainbow Youth Project USA, demands that educational institutions in Oklahoma and across the country take immediate action to address the pervasive issue of bullying and harassment faced by LGBTQ+ students. 

Statistics reveal that 58 percent of LGBTQ+ youth in Oklahoma feel unsafe at school, painting a grim picture of the challenges these individuals face on a daily basis. “Schools must be safe and inclusive environments for all students, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is unacceptable that a significant number of LGBTQ+ students are experiencing bullying and harassment.”

Rainbow Youth Project USA, based on recent data, received 1,097 crisis calls from Oklahoma in February alone. Nearly 86 percent of these callers reported instances of being bullied within the state’s schools, highlighting the urgent need for improved support and protection for LGBTQ youth. 

In a conversation with the Blade on Wednesday, investigative journalist T.J. Payne reflected on the report:

“I canā€™t help but feel a sickness around all of it. As a trans person, reading a trans childā€™s autopsy is really fucked. Referring to their various insides as normal, intact, not usual. If only we described trans people the same way externally. Just like everybody else in the world trying to survive.”

Continue Reading

Federal Government

National Security Council meets with Ugandan LGBTQ activist

Frank Mugisha met with the NSC on Monday

Published

on

Frank Mugisha, Gay News, Washington Blade
Sexual Minorities Uganda Executive Director Frank Mugisha (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

The U.S. National Security Council met with Ugandan LGBTQ rights activist Frank Mugisha on Monday, according to a spokesperson who reaffirmed America’s opposition to civil rights abuses against LGBTQ people in the East African country.

Last year, Uganda passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act, a law that criminalizes, with prison sentences, identifying as gay or lesbian and imposes the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality.”

The Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly denounced the legislation and called for its repeal.

“There have been increased reports of evictions, vigilante attacks, and police harassment, abuse, and detainment of individuals who are or are perceived to be LGBTQI+, including reports of the Ugandan police subjecting individuals to forced anal examinations ā€“ an abusive, degrading practice that serves no investigative or public health purpose,” the White House wrote in a December 2023 fact sheet.

In a post on X about the meeting with Mugisha, Adrienne Watson, special assistant to the president and National Security Council senior director for press and spokesperson, wrote that the “United States continues to have zero tolerance for any form of discrimination or harmful activities.”

Mugisha, who is gay, is one of the most prominent LGBTQ advocates in Uganda, winning the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award and Thorolf Rafto Memorial Prize for his work in 2011. He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2014.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

D.C. events to commemorate International Transgender Day of Visibility

Monica Beverly-Hillz to attend Blossom Gala at Hook Hall

Published

on

(Washington Blade file photo by Michael K. Lavers)

Trans USA National Pageantry and the National Center for Transgender Equality will hold a series of events in D.C. on Sunday in commemoration of the International Transgender Day of Visibility.

The TRANSform the Vote rally will take place on the National Mall.

Organized by the Queer Equity Institute and NCTE, the event aims to celebrate trans liberation, combat violence and promote civic engagement. Elected officials, activists and artists are expected to participate. 

Queer Equity Institute Executive Director Leigh Finke and NCTE Executive Director Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen discussed the rally and how it will empower the trans community and promote advocacy.

ā€œFrom restricting access to medically necessary healthcare to denying trans students the opportunity to participate in sports, we have seen nationwide efforts to exclude trans people from society,ā€ said Heng-Lehtinen. ā€œTRANSform the Vote presents a historical moment for us to empower our community ā€” casting our votes and participating in democracy is just one of many ways our community can advocate for the issues that matter to us.ā€

Finke, Minnesotaā€™s first openly trans lawmaker who wrote the stateā€™s groundbreaking trans refuge bill, echoed Heng-Lehtinen.

“Over the past few years, weā€™ve watched again and again as ‘jokes’ became hate speech, hate speech became bills, bills became laws; and all the jokes, hate speech and laws created an environment where transgender people are assaulted, beaten and murdered,” said Finke. “Some of the most important tools we have to fight back against these attacks is to change the culture through voting, running for office and creating art and music that shift society. This rally is meant to highlight and encourage folks to use those tools in their communities.”

Confirmed speakers and participants aside from Finke and Heng-Lehtinen include:

  • Minnesota state Rep. Alicia ā€œLiishā€ Kozlowski, who is one of the countryā€™s foremost activists for Indigenous trans and two-spirit people.
  • Minneapolis City Council President Andrea Jenkins.
  • Angelica Ross, a Buddhist artist and human rights activist.
  • Visual artist Cassils

The first annual Blossom Gala will take place at Hook Hall (3400 Georgia Ave., N.W.) and will feature keynote speakers, a Q&A panel discussion featuring national leaders in the trans rights movement and drag performances. Cherry Bomb, which will cap off the event, is an all-trans drag showcase.

Mr. Trans USA 2020 Eddie Broadway; Miss Trans USA 2020 Bianca Nicole and Candi Stratton, a world-renowned Cher illusionist, are among those who are expected to perform. Other participants will include Miss Trans USA 2023 Anya Marino, Mr. Trans USA 2023 Trey C. Michaels and NCTE National Organizer Sybastian Smith.  

Monica Beverly-Hillz from “RuPaul’s Drag Race” will also participate.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular