National
HRC president on the road ahead for LGBT movement
‘You don’t give up anywhere, and we’re going to have opportunities everywhere’
Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin sees progress on ENDA and marriage equality ahead. (Washington Blade file photo by Blake Bergen).
From advancing marriage equality to building support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin sees significant progress ahead on LGBT issues across the country.
Immediately after the Senate committee vote Wednesday in favor of ENDA, Griffin spoke with the Washington Blade about moving forward in the aftermath of the historic vote and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions two weeks earlier in favor of marriage equality.
Griffin also talked about the Southern tour on which he’s embarked — in particular his visit to his home state of Arkansas — which he said is an attempt to reach out to LGBT people away from the coasts to ensure progress reaches them.
“If you look at the map of equality right now, you’ve got the coasts — largely, not completely — colored in, and then you’ve got everything in the middle with two little amazing dots that I’m really proud of: one in Minnesota, and one great Supreme Court decision in Iowa, ” Griffin said. “But the rest of this country has to be colored in as well.”
Arkansas was also an important stop for Griffin because Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) is one of three Senate Democrats who have yet to sign on in support of ENDA. Griffin emphasized poll numbers showing 61 percent of Arkansas resident support a transgender-inclusive federal law protecting workers against discrimination.
“Sen. Pryor is a key vote, and Sen. Pryor has yet to announce his position on ENDA, and it’s important for him to hear from Arkansans, for him to hear from folks all over the state on why this is important to them,” Griffin said.
Asked whether a discharge petition would be an appropriate course of action for ENDA in the House, Griffin said, “I don’t know the answer. I think as we get closer and as we make progress in the Senate, we’ll see, as we get closer, what the right strategies will be ultimately to get this done.”
Griffin also identified LGBT youth homelessness as an issue that doesn’t get enough attention in the media compared to others like marriage equality — noting 40 percent of homeless youth in Salt Lake City identify as LGBT.
“Just yesterday, I was talking to a number of folks in North Carolina about the homeless youth issue, and the issue of homelessness,” Griffin said. “There are a number of ways to combat that problem. One of them is direct service providing and the need for public funds to do that.”
The full transcript of the interview follows:
Washington Blade: What do you hope to accomplish during your Southern tour?
Chad Griffin at the ceremony for the signing of the D.C. anti-bullying bill. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Chad Griffin: Look, I said this the moment I walked down the steps of the Supreme Court, and then I said it on the phone with the president about 10 minutes later that there’s certainly a moment of celebration. We have to acknowledge the historic significance of those two decisions, of the fact that two of the grandest symbols of discrimination in this country — in many ways, quite frankly, around the world — were struck down by the Supreme Court, and, with that decision, thousands upon thousands, and ultimately millions of people are going to be treated more equal, and with dignity and respect.
Families are going to have protections that they didn’t have before, and we doubled the number of Americans in states with marriage equality, which is incredible. We went from 14 percent to 30 percent.
But the moment you finish those words, you immediately have to pivot to the 37 states that didn’t feel the reach of justice by those decisions. Now, they provided great help to the young person who was able to see on TV, and read on the Internet and Twitter and so forth — it gave great hope and it said some day, those people are going to grow up with the same hope, dreams and aspirations. But in 37 states, they didn’t feel the reach of justice.
… That night, I never went to bed. I was on a 6 a.m. flight to Salt Lake City the very next morning. The Thursday morning after the decisions to highlight just that. And that’s where we have to work, and have to organize like we’ve never organized before, and work harder than we’ve ever worked before in states across this country. Because if you look at the map of equality right now, you’ve got the coasts — largely, not completely — colored in, and then you’ve got everything in the middle with two little amazing dots that I’m really proud of: one in Minnesota, and one great Supreme Court decision in Iowa.
But the rest of this country has to be colored in as well, and that’s why I’ve been meeting with folks — in Arkansas, in particular. We released a bipartisan poll — I assume you know about that — that’s incredible. All the focus is always on the national numbers, and where the movement is, and whether we’re 56 or 57 or 55, whatever national poll you look at. But in Arkansas, we’re almost 40 percent in support of marriage equality, and for those under 30, we’re at 61 percent in support for marriage equality.
And then, in that state in particular, we highlighted the ENDA numbers. Over 60 percent of Arkansans support a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act. And that’s an important message to get out. … We did two events. The first one, we had about 400 people. The next one, on the same day, about 300 people. I met with folks in Hot Springs a couple days before that when I was with my family.
But Sen. [Mark] Pryor is a key vote, and Sen. Pryor has yet to announce his position on ENDA, and it’s important for him to hear from Arkansans, for him to hear from folks all over the state on why this is important to them.
I then went to North Carolina, and, unfortunately, Sen. Burr voted via proxy, he wasn’t here today, via proxy “no.” But I think that you give up on no one. We still have several weeks, and months, to work before this on the Senate, and I think we don’t give up on anyone. There were a lot of folks who were surprised by the bipartisan votes that came out of this markup this morning. And I’m optimistic that we can have more Republicans and undecided Democrats join us. And that’s why I’m spending time in these states, so that these folks can hear from their constituents, and can hear from them in loud and bold ways.
And for us to really begin, and for me to spend time, quite frankly. In my first year, I think I’ve been to 23 states, and it’s time to spend a lot more time in the states, like Arkansas, my home town, where I grew up my entire life, where my entire family still is. And Arkansas looks a lot like the other 37 states.
Blade: What do you think are the most immediate prospects for marriage equality in those remaining 37 states?
(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Griffin: Well, like I said, it took us less than five years to take down Proposition 8 from the day it was passed. I think within these next five years, and I think it’s an important goal to set that we, as a community, can bring marriage equality to all 50 states within five years. And there a number of opportunities. There’s no silver bullet that goes from state to state. It’s very different in the states.
In a state like Illinois, we have all been organizing in a great coalition of in-state organization and national organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda, the ACLU and HRC. We’ve had, I think, 15 field team members on the ground there for months. That legislature should have already passed it. I think, very soon, it will.
In Oregon, there’s a ballot opportunity coming up where we also have folks on the ground and strong chapters. In Nevada, we have real opportunities there. It’s a bit more of a complicated process with two legislative votes, and then a public vote, to make progress. It’s the only state, I think, by the way, that’s like that.
And then, there are other states that, I think, where opportunities are going to present themselves. There are states — people were shocked that opposition to marriage equality was 55 percent. “55 percent? That means you’re losing!” Yeah, but look at the movement each year. Well, in two years, in three years, in four years, I don’t know how many years that is, we’re a few years away from crossing the 50 percent point in a state like Arkansas.
So, I really think that you don’t give up anywhere, and we’re going to have opportunities everywhere. Now, at the end of the day, just like in the civil rights movement in the ’50s and ’60s, there are going to be states that, unfortunately, the electorate might move, but elected officials might not in some of the places. And, I think, ultimately, they will regret it as most of them did during the civil rights movement, and for those states, it will take another federal court decision.
And I suspect, you’ve already seen several announced, I suspect you’ll probably see dozens in the months to come, as legal organizations as well as just everyday folks filing lawsuits with the momentum they saw out of those decisions.
What’s important is that we’re strategic and smart in all those ways, but what’s also important [is] that we acknowledge what might have been impossible just a few years ago, is perhaps possible today. You know, and as it relates to the Prop 8 case, there were a lot of folks that thought that wasn’t possible and thought that Justice [Anthony] Kennedy would never be there on issues like equal protection today, and argued for waiting a long time. What we saw was the courts catching up with public opinion, and so ultimately, there will be another federal court case or multiple ones that reach the Supreme Court, and that’ll just decide this for the states that don’t move along.
But our job, in the interim, is to move equality forward, where we can advance marriage equality. We need to advance it in all these different ways, continue to change more hearts and minds where we can move forward with employment non-discrimination. Statewide we need to do it. And where we can’t get it statewide, we need to move it at the municipal level in cities and in counties — again, depending on the state, how you can move it forward.
A state like Utah, I think, to date, the number is like 18 municipalities in Utah. There are no statewide protections. but there are 18 cities in Utah that have such protections. My home state of Arkansas has none, has zero protections. Hopefully, some day, in a state like Arkansas, we can move forward on employment protections statewide, but in the meantime, I think it’s an example of a place where we make progress at the city level in a number of places.
Blade: Getting back to ENDA, today we had Hatch and Murkowski voting in favor of it. Did those votes surprise you?
Griffin: I have to say when it comes to issues of equality, nothing surprises me when it comes to Democrats and Republicans on this issue.
The most recent poll shows 9 out of 10 Americans have someone in their close immediate family circle, or close friend circle, that’s LGB or T. And all of the research shows that when you know us, you don’t hate us, you don’t wish less than, you don’t wish upon your loved ones to be treated as less than you, and you don’t wish for them to be intentionally harmed, and, I think, that is a key reason that Democrats and Republicans alike are evolving on these issues. Folks in both parties, but it was particularly significant today that we came out of this markup for those three Republicans joining those Democrats.
I think it’s also important to note that there was also one Republican here who actually voice-voted “no,” and then was the proxy for the other “nos.” But none of the other “nos” were actually even in the room. It’s incredible progress. We’ve seen the incredible bipartisan progress on marriage equality, today we saw bipartisan progress as it relates to ENDA, and I think this is only going to continue.
Our job is to continue to organize to continue to increase the pace of this bipartisan progress, and to ensure that when we get to the Senate floor, we’ve done everything we can to ensure that these senators have heard from their constituents back home, and that they know that this is not a partisan issue at home, and that they know that it’s an issue of basic human dignity.
It’s, quite frankly, the most conservative of issues — basic human dignity, treating everyone equally under the law, hiring them based on their qualifications, keeping them based on their job performances, not based on who they love, how they were born. And so, I’m so excited to sit here today and see the bipartisan collaboration.
But we have to acknowledge we still have a long ways to go. This vote today does not mean this bill is done. It means we’re coming out in a good way, but we’ve got a lot of work to do to push this across the finish line: both in the Senate to get 60 votes, and then we move to the House of Representatives.
Blade: What are some of the details? How are you going to get there? How are you going to achieve that?
Griffin: Well, we’re already doing it, and I said, the examples I gave, we’re organizing in states where we have …targeted votes. Arkansas being an example, and Utah being another example, and Alaska being another example.
[To HRC Legislative Director Allison Herwitt]: Feel free to add here. I didn’t sleep last night. North Carolina? I’ve already told him about that one.
Blade: In the House, do you think a discharge petition would be a good way to go to move forward?
Griffin: I don’t know the answer. I think as we get closer and as we make progress in the Senate, we’ll see, as we get closer, what the right strategies will be ultimately to get this done and work with the leadership, and work with Leader Reid and Chairman Harkin, who have been instrumental, and Sen. Merkley, who have been instrumental in getting us to where we are today. And we’ll work closely with them and take direction from them in terms of the best way to advance this and come up with a law that the president can sign.
Blade: You talked a lot about marriage and ENDA. What LGBT issues aren’t getting enough attention in the media?
(Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Griffin: Well, look, I never think enough attention can be given to an issue when there’s so much harm done every single day, and I always go back to the young people who suffer day in, and day out because of inequality. There are the laws that impact, and the laws that should be providing protections to them and to their families, but there’s also the bigger impact of those laws giving license to discriminate.
Just yesterday, I was talking to a number of folks in North Carolina about the homeless youth issue, and the issue of homelessness. There are a number of ways to combat that problem. One of them is direct service providing and the need for public funds to do that. But it’s such a disproportionate number of LGBT youth that are homeless.
In Utah, the day before I started this job, I spent a good portion of the day at a homeless shelter, not an LGBT homeless shelter, a homeless shelter. Forty percent of homeless youth in Salt Lake City identify as LGBT. So there’s a lot of work to do there. But you also have to go to the root of the problem of why are these young people homeless, and it’s often two answers. One, they come out of the closet, and their parents reject them because they’re either told by the government, or by their church, that their children are less than and they should be rejected.
Or, often times, the case is they do come out. Young people increasingly have the courage to come out, and then their families reject them and kick them out of their homes, and young people travel to the closest city they can get to where they have a shelter.
So, I don’t want to insinuate that that’s the only issue that should be getting more attention because there are many issues that should be getting more attention both from the media, and public funding and financing, and legislatively.
But we have a long ways to go, and I think, the important point with the question you ask is there are a lot of celebrations over these last two weeks, and it is important finally to celebrate when we’re having some major achievements. You have to be able to celebrate, but you also have to immediately be able to turn the corner and pivot, and acknowledge the road ahead.
Blade: You’ve been on the job at HRC for just more than a year now. Has anything come up over that time that has surprised you, that came up that you didn’t think was going to happen?
Griffin: Look, I’ve been in Washington long enough before I started this job that it’s sort of difficult to surprise, but, I guess, what moves me the most is meeting the thousands and thousands of people. Like I said, I was probably with 800,000 people in Arkansas in a 24-hour period. I venture to say it was 60 percent LGBT folks and 40 percent straight allies who showed up because they cared and they want to advance equality. Those are the folks that are good reminders every single day of why we fight this fight.
In this town, we so often get caught up in the partisan and political bickering, and it’s important for all of us to spend as much time as we can outside this city, So, I guess perhaps, I don’t know if surprise is the right word, but certainly the most gratifying part of this job is getting to spend time with those folks that need equality the most.
National
Barney Frank on trans rights, 2028, and the need to ‘reform the left’
Gay former congressman starts home hospice care while completing new book
Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who served in the House from 1981 until his retirement in 2013 and who became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay in 1987, has resurfaced in the news over the past two weeks after announcing he has entered home hospice care and plans to publish a new book on, among other things, how Democrats can and should regain control of Congress.
According to media reports and an interview Frank conducted this week with the Washington Blade, his book, entitled “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy,” calls on the Democratic Party’s progressive left leaning members to be more strategic in pushing for laws and policies initially considered “politically unacceptable” to most U.S. voters and the American people.
Frank told the Blade he believes the LGBTQ rights movement has succeeded in advancing most of its agenda seeking protections against discrimination by initially pushing less controversial advances such as the end to the ban on gays in the military and non-discrimination in employment before taking on the more controversial issue of same-sex marriage.
While acknowledging that Congress has yet to pass a national law banning discrimination against LGBTQ people in employment, housing, and public accommodations as 22 states and D.C. have already done, he points to the two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, one legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, and the other declaring sexual orientation and gender identity are protected categories for which employment discrimination is prohibited under existing federal law in Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020.
Frank notes that while some in the LGBTQ community are fearful that LGBTQ rights are under attack and may be pulled back under the Trump administration, he believes Republicans in Congress at this time will not attempt to repeal any existing LGBTQ protections, especially those regarding marriage rights and employment protections secured by the Supreme Court rulings.
He says transgender rights are the remaining LGBTQ issue that have yet to be adopted rationally, and he fully supports ongoing efforts to advance trans rights. But like his criticism of the progressive left among Democrats, Frank says the efforts to advance trans rights could be jeopardized by the highly controversial issue of “male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports.”
He added, “That’s the most controversial, the most difficult. It affects the fewest number of people.” While he says trans rights supporters should continue to advocate for that, “they should not make it a litmus test and say well if you’re not for that you’re not a supporter of the rights of transgender people. There are places where people are supportive, and we want to encourage that.”
Frank, 86, told Politico he has entered home hospice care as he deals with ongoing congestive heart failure. He said he is remaining in his home in Ogunquit, Maine, where he has lived with his husband, Jim Ready, since retiring from Congress in 2013.
“I’ve been doing some writing. I wrote this book,” Frank told the Blade. “I’ve relaxed. Meanwhile, my health has been failing. Jim has been a saint in taking care of me,” he said. “And so, I take it easy.”
Frank spoke to the Washington Blade in a phone interview from his home on May 4.
Washington Blade: We’re hearing some interesting reports about the book you’ve been writing. Can you say when it will be published?
Barney Frank: Sept. 15 is the publication date.
Blade: Some of the reports about the book in the media have said you want the far left within the Democratic Party to be more cautious.
Frank: No, I’ll give you this. The job is to defeat populism to keep democracy. Clearly you have to know what caused it. I believe that the essential cause in the surge of populism was economic inequality and the failure of mainstream liberals to address inequality. And beginning in the ‘80s economic growth became less and less fair in its institutions. And that led to all this anger.
So, the mainstream left finally figured that out after [Bernie] Sanders and Trump in ’16. So, we then – because I was working to make that change – got the Democrats to pay attention to economic inequality. And Joe Biden’s program did. The problem is at that point, people on the left who had correctly been critical of the failure to address equality said, OK, that’s not the only problem you guys are missing. There are all these other problems.
And they jumped from being right on the question of inequality and equality to believing in a lot more social changes, some of which were just unacceptable to the public. And the mistake they make is they don’t distinguish – there are a lot of issues I’ve been for in my life, but I had to assert that they were not currently politically survivable.
So, you do two things. Those that are politically survivable work to get them done. Others, you become an advocate. But you don’t make the most controversial part of your agenda litmus tests and drive away your allies. You will remember that on marriage that was an issue and in 2000 they insisted you will be for marriage.
So, my thesis is that while the mainstream understood its mistake on inequality, the most militant and ideological of our left misunderstand public opinion and they are pushing the public to — and they are insisting on acceptance of things that are not politically acceptable.
Blade: Having said what you said, how do you see that impacting gay rights or LGBTQ rights?
Frank: Well in the first place, gay rights – one of the things I want to address – is this fear that gay rights are going to be taken away – rights for LGB people. Nonsense. We’re not going to lose any of those rights. If they tried to undo marriage, for instance, the political reaction they would get would be abortion type sentiment. They are just not going to do that because it causes them too many political problems.
The problem is advances we hope to make in the area of transgender people. But there is no chance of losing – I can’t think of a single right that is in jeopardy. They are not going to reintroduce the ban in the military. They’re not going to tell people their marriages are cancelled. Again, the Republicans are not even trying to do that because they know there would be a terrible backlash.
With regard to LGBT there is one analogy. And that is the most controversial issue we faced over the years on what was the gay-bisexual agenda was same-sex marriage. And we left that until the end. And you remember we did the military. We did ENDA. We moved on to everything else, and it wasn’t until the very end that we went into marriage. [NOTE: ENDA did not ultimately pass.]
I think the analogy to that is male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports. That’s the most controversial, the most difficult. It affects the fewest number of people. And I believe had we deferred on marriage — people who believe that’s important should advocate for it. But they should not make it a litmus test and say well if you’re not for that you’re not a supporter of the rights of transgender people. There are places where people are supportive, and we want to encourage that.
Blade: You said you don’t think we will lose any rights, most of the laws related to nondiscrimination are from the states or municipal laws that were passed.
Frank: Tell me what you think will be lost. You and I always have this problem. I’ve always felt you were cynical and skeptical. Tell me what right we now have that’s in jeopardy.
Blade: One would be if the Supreme Court reverses its decision on same-sex marriage.
Frank: If they do, Congress would now step in on that, which would be the passage of Tammy Baldwin’s bill.
Blade: But what I was going to ask you next is in all the years you’ve been in office and as of now a federal LGBTQ rights bill has not been passed by Congress yet. Is there a chance of that happening?
Frank: I do not think it will happen because the members of Congress do not want to be in the position of voting to cancel people’s marriages. There are valid marriages throughout the country. And the notion that Congress will pass a bill invalidating those, no they won’t. They won’t do anything that’s as disruptive and that will cause a strong reaction. Have you seen a federal bill to do that? I haven’t.
Blade: No, and I am sorry if I’m not putting the question across correctly. I’m talking about the bill that bans discrimination based on employment, public accommodations and other areas for LGBTQ people that Congress has not yet passed. You co-sponsored that for many years.
Frank: I know that, and the Supreme Court did that one. No, I don’t think that – oh, all right, that’s a different question than marriage. If the Supreme Court reverses itself on that – I don’t see any sign that they’re going to, then I think you would see the federal bill passed.
[He is referring to the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that employment discrimination against gay, bi, and trans people was equivalent to sex discrimination, which is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.]
Blade: Are you talking about marriage?
Frank: For both for marriage and for non-[discrimination] – I don’t think a marriage bill would pass nationally. To distinguish, I don’t think a bill striking down marriages would pass. Too much violent reaction. As to employment discrimination, where they haven’t acted yet, if the Supreme Court changes that – I think that’s extremely unlikely – then I think Congress would step in.
Blade: Are you saying we may not need an LGBTQ non-discrimination act by Congress for the states that haven’t passed that?
Frank: I would be in favor of that, yes. But again, I think you and I – you have always been pessimistic. There is a political time now that works in our favor. And as I said, on abortion, they burned themselves very badly on abortion. And yes, I’m still for a national anti-discrimination bill. But I do not think the right wing wants to be caught taking rights away that already exist. Because that’s a lot harder than denying them in the first place. And I don’t see any movement for that. You tell me what you are worried about. What bills are you worried about?
Blade: I was simply saying they haven’t yet passed a federal non-discrimination bill.
Frank: No, what’s going to change on the Supreme Court? I don’t see a pretty quick reversal on the Supreme Court. So, I think people are just – they have to have a cause. And they are inflating the likelihood that we are going to lose some rights when I see no evidence of it. And in fact, I see a lot of political reasons why those in Congress don’t want to do that.
I’ll tell you there are a lot of Republicans who would vote for same-sex marriage. For example, the leadership would say for Christ’s sake, don’t bring that up. They don’t want to take a position on it. And they got burned on abortion, badly.
Blade: To the extent that you are observing this, do you think the LGBTQ rights organizations are doing what they should be doing?
Frank: Well, I think some are stressing the negative too much. Because when people believe nothing good ever happens, they may get discouraged. I think they should be concentrating on the transgender issue. And I know the most controversial parts are protecting people’s rights to medical care, their rights selecting their own gender. And that’s what I would be working on.
And yeah, it would be nice to pass the national bill. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Well, if the Democrats get the House, the Senate, and the presidency, maybe it will happen. But I don’t see the urgency of that because I don’t see any movement to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision.
Blade: What message would you have for the LGBTQ community?
Frank: My message is one, we’re in good shape. And two, that what remains in the transgender issue – who is first? Which are those of your issues that are the most politically acceptable. And you work your way through and as you win on some of those the resistance on the tougher ones will diminish. And the other issue is we are – the problem is the stand to protect the rights of transgender people. But the rights for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, I do not think they are in jeopardy and I do not think a lot of resources should be spent on being what I think is a very small threat.
Blade: For those states and municipalities that do not have laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination, do you think attitudes are changing so there would be little or no discrimination?
Frank: Oh, no question. First of all, I think it’s very unlikely that any of the rights they have will be taken away. And secondly, if they had to take some positive steps to take away protections they would not do it. And I think that ship has sailed in our direction and isn’t going back. In the end, you cannot underestimate there’s a big political difference between denying people their rights in the first place and taking it away from them after they’ve enjoyed it.
Anything is theoretically possible, but I don’t see any evidence that’s likely to happen.
Blade: We’re coming up to the midterm elections this year, but is there anyone coming up in the next presidential election who you might be supporting?
Frank: Oh, I think at this point we’re going to have a fairly open Democratic process. And it’s very clear at this point the way American politics is going it will be a basically supportive Democrat against a basically opposed Republican. And I’ll be supporting the Democrat. And so, this Democrat would be the best one, the most electable. And which one, I haven’t decided that. I want to see how people will fare when they start running.
But I think it is inconceivable that the Democrats would nominate someone who is not fully supportive.
Blade: Some people might be asking what you have been doing since you retired from Congress.
Frank: I’ve been doing some writing. I wrote this book. I’ve relaxed. Meanwhile, my health has been failing. Jim [husband Jim Ready] has been a saint in taking care of me. And so, I take it easy. In terms of what I do, I have two rules, two pieces of advice for people who retire. One is that you should make up two lists. One is you should have a bucket list, a list of things you want to do before you’re through. But more important than the bucket list is a list that rhymes with bucket. That’s a very important list. And that’s one that I increasingly defer to.
Blade: And what is the one other than bucket?
Frank: It rhymes with bucket. What rhymes with bucket?
Blade: Oh, OK.
Frank: That’s the list I follow.
Florida
Key West Pride’s state funding pulled
Republican Fla. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed anti-DEI bill
Following the passage of anti-DEI legislation in Florida, Key West will no longer receive any state funding for its future Pride events.
In a letter provided to the Key West Business Guild, the LGBTQ visitor and tourism center for the string of islands, a senior assistant county attorney for Monroe County officially said that the organization would no longer receive funding for its ongoing projects as a result of Senate Bill 1134 and House Bill 1001, starting in 2027.
The popular Key West Pride, gay men–leaning Tropical Heat weekend, and Womenfest will no longer receive any state money. This is something that Gay Key West Visitor Center Executive Director Rob Dougherty highlighted will shift how all the largest LGBTQ events in the Keys will be held after this year.
He said that the explanation is solely a result of SB 1134 and HB 1001, which limits the official actions of local governments by “prohibiting counties and municipalities, respectively, from funding or promoting or taking official action as it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion …”
The legislation is being used to impose restrictions on funding events that exclude — whereas the events’ true purpose is to uplift already marginalized groups.
“Womenfest lost it [funding] because it’s a women’s-only event. Tropical Heat lost it because it’s a men’s-only event … that’s how this is being applied.”
This will not impact anything this year, Dougherty assured the Washington Blade; however, the future is not as certain.
“The law that (Republican Florida) Gov. DeSantis signed does not go into effect until Jan. 1, so for 2026 we’re okay,” Dougherty told the Blade. “But it impacts Key West Pride 2027, it impacts Tropical Heat 2027 and Womenfest — so we have lost all funding for those three events.”
He said that this will amount to a large chunk of the expected funding for the LGBTQ celebrations, which the Key West tourism board says is “internationally known as a gay mecca.”
“We’re due to lose about $200,000. Not all of that is direct, but the way that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) distributes their money, about $75,000 of it is for Key West Pride, and that helps to pay for things like marketing, swag, and other things that promote the event.”
He went on to explain that marketing to many major metropolitan areas with large LGBTQ populations may not see the same Key West advertisements and push as in years past — and that is the point.
“Our digital marketing, our print marketing, our SEO marketing — all of that is paid for through there, and it targets places with direct flights like Washington, D.C., New York, Philly, Atlanta, Dallas. So it’s definitely going to impact that.”
The money that will stop coming is not just to run events and celebrations, he explained. Money that goes back directly into the community is going to be hardest hit.
“An estimated 250,000 LGBTQ+ travelers make it to Key West on an annual basis, and on a very conservative basis, for every LGBTQ+ person there are two to four allies traveling with the same values.”
“The TDC also estimates that $1,500+ is spent per person per visit … so if you take those figures and multiply those all together, it comes up to about $1.2 billion … that is potentially going to be lost.”
He says that this will intrinsically change how Key West’s tourism — especially the large LGBTQ side of it — will run, especially since gay vacations need a foundation and expectation of safety and support to blossom.
“We travel based upon where we feel most welcome,” Dougherty said. “Key West has always been its own little place … the LGBTQ+ history of Key West and everything about Key West has always been a little bit weird for people, and that’s why they come here.”
The Guild was formed in 1978 to encourage summer tourism and support Key West’s gay community — becoming the nation’s first LGBTQ destination marketing organization. It has grown tremendously from its original membership to now include more than 475 enterprises representing virtually every facet of the island’s business community.
He also went on to say that this should be eye-opening for anywhere considered an LGBTQ destination, regardless of whether it is in a blue state or a red one.
“I think it can be a wake-up call across the country, because if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.”
Federal Government
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
Mass. college accused of violating Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.
Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.
The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.
The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.
This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.
Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.
“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”
“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”
This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.
Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.
Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.
Comings & Goings
Learn more about queer love
Calendar: May 8-14
Va. Supreme Court invalidates Democrat-backed redistricting plan
Maren Morris to headline Capital Pride Concert
Under new extremism laws, LGBTQ Russians must fight to survive
How do you vote a child out of their future?
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
A reign defined by commitment and human impact
