Connect with us

Politics

New guidance grants gay couples access to pension benefits

Policy applies even in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage

Published

on

Thomas Perez, Civil Rights Division, Justice Department, gay news, Washington Blade

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez has issued new guidance for giving gay couples health care and pension benefits (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key).

Gay workers are now fully eligible to participate with their spouses in employer-provided health care and pension benefits plans organized under federal law — even if they live in a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage — thanks to new guidance issued in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act.

On Wednesday, the Labor Department issued guidance stating that the definition of “spouse” and “marriage” would now include married gay couples under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

“This is the most natural reading of those terms; it is consistent with Windsor, in which the plaintiff was seeking tax benefits under a statute that used the term ‘spouse’; and a narrower interpretation would not further the purposes of the relevant statutes and regulations,” the guidance states.

Most large corporations operating in multiple states organize their health care and pension plans under ERISA to bypass state laws and achieve a standardized system for employees working across the country. Whereas previously a company would not have recognized an employee’s same-sex spouse as a beneficiary, from this point forward, the spouse will now be designated as such.

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez noted the significance of the Windsor decision in a statement accompanying the news of the guidance.

“This decision represents a historic step toward equality for all American families, and I have directed the department’s agency heads to ensure that they are implementing the decision in a way that provides maximum protection for workers and their families,” Perez said. “The department plans to issue additional guidance in the coming months as we continue to consult with the Department of Justice and other federal agencies to implement the decision.”

According to the guidance, couples will be eligible for participating in ERISA programs even if they marry in one state and move to another where their marriage isn’t recognized under state law. The guidance describes why this interpretation of the court decision against DOMA is most appropriate in terms of ERISA.

“A rule for employee benefit plans based on state of domicile would raise significant challenges for employers that operate or have employees (or former employees) in more than one state or whose employees move to another state while entitled to benefits,” the guidance states. “Furthermore, substantial financial and administrative burdens would be placed on those employers, as well as the administrators of employee benefit plans.”

However, like other post-DOMA decisions from the administration, the guidance notes that couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships won’t be eligible for this federal benefit. They need a legal marriage.

“The terms ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage,’ however, do not include individuals in a formal relationship recognized by a state that is not denominated a marriage under state law, such as a domestic partnership or a civil union, regardless of whether the individuals who are in these relationships have the same rights and responsibilities as those individuals who are married under state law,” the guidance states.

Still, Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization is happy with the guidance.

“It’s yet another positive indication of the way in which this administration is interpreting the Windsor decision,” Sainz said.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, commended Perez after the guidance was issued, but said his department could do more for the LGBT community by aiding transgender employees “who too often face harassment and workplace discrimination.”

“Secretary Perez should officially recognize and adopt the bipartisan EEOC decision in Macy v. Holder, and he should instruct the Labor Department to start adding transgender protections into the newly signed federal contracts that are covered by the existing Executive Order 11246,” Almeida said.

Notably, the Labor Department is providing ERISA benefits for couples in legal same-sex marriages living in states that don’t recognize those unions, but made no such clarification in earlier guidance granting couples benefits under the Family & Medical Leave Act.

Almeida also called on the Labor Department to clarify this earlier guidance to grant couples FMLA benefits nationwide.

“It’s great that the Labor Department has adopted the ‘state of celebration’ rule so that gay and lesbian couples from Texas can go to California to get married and then have ERISA protections at their Texas jobs, and the Labor Department now needs to re-write the Family Medical Leave Act regulations to adopt that same ‘state of celebration’ rule so that all married couples — no matter where they live — can have job protections when a same-sex spouse is diagnosed with a serious illness,” Almeida said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Van Hollen speaks at ‘ICE Out for Good’ protest in D.C.

ICE agent killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) speaks at the 'ICE Out for Good' rally in D.C. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is among those who spoke at an “ICE Out for Good” protest that took place outside U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s headquarters in D.C. on Tuesday.

The protest took place six days after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis.

Good left behind her wife and three children.

(Video by Michael K. Lavers)

Continue Reading

Congress

Advocates say MTG bill threatens trans youth, families, and doctors

The “Protect Children’s Innocence” Act passed in the House

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) speaks at a press conference on Sept. 20 for her anti-trans legislation. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has a long history of targeting the transgender community as part of her political agenda. Now, after announcing her resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives, attempting to take away trans rights may be the last thing she does in her official capacity.

The proposed legislation, dubbed “Protect Children’s Innocence Act” is among the most extreme anti-trans measures to move through Congress. It would put doctors in jail for up to 10 years if they provide gender-affirming care to minors — including prescribing hormone replacement therapy to adolescents or puberty blockers to younger children. The bill also aims to halt gender-affirming surgeries for minors, though those procedures are rare.

Greene herself described the bill on X, saying if passed, “it would make it a Class C felony to trans a child under 18.”

According to KFF, a nonpartisan source for health policy research, polling, and journalism, 27 states have enacted policies limiting youth access to gender-affirming care. Roughly half of all trans youth ages 13–17 live in a state with such restrictions, and 24 states impose professional or legal penalties on health care practitioners who provide that care.

Greene has repeatedly introduced the bill since 2021, the year she entered Congress, but it failed to advance. Now, in exchange for her support for the National Defense Authorization Act, the legislation reached the House floor for the first time.

According to the 19th, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first trans member of Congress, rebuked Republicans on the Capitol steps Wednesday for advancing anti-trans legislation while allowing Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire — a move expected to raise health care costs for millions of Americans.

“They would rather have us focus in and debate a misunderstood and vulnerable one percent of the population, instead of focusing in on the fact that they are raiding everyone’s health care,” McBride said. “They are obsessed with trans people … they are consumed with this.”

Polling suggests the public largely opposes criminalizing gender-affirming care.

A recent survey by the Human Rights Campaign and Global Strategy Group found that 73 percent of voters in U.S. House battleground districts oppose laws that would jail doctors or parents for providing transition-related care. Additionally, 77 percent oppose forcing trans people off medically recommended medication. Nearly seven in 10 Americans said politicians are not informed enough to make decisions about medical care for trans youth.

The bill passed the House and now heads to the U.S. Senate for further consideration.

According to reporting by Erin Reed of Erin In The Morning, three Democrats — U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Don Davis of North Carolina — crossed party lines to vote in favor of the felony ban, joining 213 Republicans. A total of 207 Democrats voted against the bill, while three lawmakers from both parties abstained.

Advocates and lawmakers warned the bill is dangerous and unprecedented during a multi-organizational press call Tuesday. Leaders from the Human Rights Campaign and the Trevor Project joined U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Dr. Kenneth Haller, and parents of trans youth to discuss the potential impact of restrictive policies like Greene’s — particularly in contrast to President Donald Trump’s leniency toward certain criminals, with more than 1,500 pardons issued this year.

“Our MAGA GOP government has pardoned drug traffickers. They’ve pardoned people who tried to overthrow the government on January 6, but now they want to put pediatricians and parents into a jail cell for caring for their kids,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson. “No one asked for Marjorie Taylor Greene or Dan Crenshaw or any politician to be in their doctor’s office, and they should mind their own business.”

Balint, co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, questioned why medical decisions are being made by lawmakers with no clinical expertise.

“Parents and doctors already have to worry about state laws banning care for their kids, and this bill would introduce the risk of federal criminal prosecution,” Balint said. “We’re talking about jail time. We’re talking about locking people up for basic medical care, care that is evidence-based, age-appropriate and life-saving.”

“These are decisions that should be made by doctors and parents and those kids that need this gender-affirming care, not certainly by Marjorie Taylor Greene.”

Haller, an emeritus professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine, described the legislation as rooted in ideology rather than medicine.

“It is not science, it is just blind ideology,” Haller said.

“The doctor tells you that as parents, as well as the doctor themselves, could be convicted of a felony and be sentenced up to 10 years in prison just for pursuing a course of action that will give your child their only chance for a happy and healthy future,” he added. “It is not in the state’s best interests, and certainly not in the interests of us, the citizens of this country, to interfere with medical decisions that people make about their own bodies and their own lives.”

Haller’s sentiment is echoed by doctors across the country.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest organization that represents doctors across the country in various parts of medicine has a longstanding support for gender-affirming care.

“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” their website reads.

Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, senior vice president of public engagement campaigns at the Trevor Project, agreed.

“In Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill [it] even goes so far as to criminalize and throw a parent in jail for this,” Heng-Lehtinen said. “Medical decisions should be between patients, families, and their doctors.”

Rachel Gonzalez, a parent of a transgender teen and LGBTQ advocate, said the bill would harm families trying to act in their children’s best interests.

“No politician should be in any doctor’s office or in our living room making private health care decisions — especially not Marjorie Taylor Greene,” Gonzalez said. “My daughter and no trans youth should ever be used as a political pawn.”

Other LGBTQ rights activists also condemned the legislation.

Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, called the bill “an abominable attack on the transgender community.”

“Marjorie Taylor Greene’s last-ditch effort to bring her 3-times failed bill to a vote is an abominable attack on the transgender community and further cements a Congressional career defined by hate and bigotry,” they said. “We are counting down the days until she’s off Capitol Hill — but as the bill goes to the floor this week, our leaders must stand up one last time to her BS and protect the safety of queer kids and medical providers. Full stop.”

Hack added that “healthcare is a right, not a privilege” in the U.S., and this attack on trans healthcare is an attack on queer rights altogether. 

“Marjorie Taylor Greene has no place in deciding what care is necessary,” Hack added. “This is another attempt to legislate trans and queer people out of existence while peddling an agenda rooted in pseudoscience and extremism.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, also denounced the legislation.

“This bill is the most extreme anti-transgender legislation to ever pass through the House of Representatives and a direct attack on the rights of parents to work with their children and their doctors to provide them with the medical care they need,” Takano said. “This bill is beyond cruel and its passage will forever be a stain on the institution of the United States Congress.”

The bill is unlikely to advance in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to pass.

Continue Reading

Politics

LGBTQ Democrats say they’re ready to fight to win in 2026

DNC winter meetings took place last weekend in Los Angeles

Published

on

Then-Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago on Aug. 22, 2024. The former vice president spoke at the Democratic National Committee's annual winter meetings in Los Angeles. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Democratic National Committee held its annual winter meetings in Downtown Los Angeles over the weekend, and queer Democrats showed up with a clear message for the national organization: don’t abandon queer and transgender people.

Following last year’s disastrous presidential and congressional elections, many influential pundits and some powerful lawmakers called on Democrats to distance the party from unpopular positions on trans rights, in order to win swing districts by wooing more conservative voters.

But members of the DNC’s LGBTQ Caucus say that’s actually a losing strategy.

“There are still parts of our party saying we need to abandon trans people in order to win elections, which is just not provable, actually. It’s just some feelings from some old consultants in DC,” LGBTQ Caucus Chair Sean Meloy says.

Some national Democrats are already backtracking from suggestions that they walk back on trans rights. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom grabbed national attention in March when he suggested that it was “deeply unfair” for trans girls to play in women’s sports. But last week, he doubled down on support for trans rights, claiming to have signed more trans-rights legislation than any governor in the country, and entering into feuds on X with Elon Musk and Nicki Minaj over his support for trans kids.

Democrats are also clearly feeling the wind in their sails recently after major election victories in Virginia and New Jersey last month, as well as victories in dozens of local and state legislative elections across the country in 2025. 

“[Abigail] Spanberger in Virginia didn’t win by dodging the trans question. She won by attacking it, confronting it, and that’s how she got ahead,” says Vivian Smotherman, a trans activist and at-large member of the DNC’s LGBTQ Caucus.

“Trans people are not a problem. We are a resource,” Smotherman says. “For my community, surviving into adulthood is not a guarantee, it’s an accomplishment. You don’t walk through a survival gauntlet without learning things … I’m not begging the DNC to protect my community. I’m here to remind you that we are the warriors tempered by fire, and we are fully capable of helping this party win.”

At its own meeting on Friday, the LGBTQ Caucus announced several new initiatives to ensure that queer and trans issues stay top of mind for the DNC as it gears up for the midterm elections next year.

One plan is to formalize the DNC’s Trans Advisory Board as distinct from the LGBTQ Caucus, to help introduce candidates across the country to trans people and trans issues.

“One in three people in this country know a trans person. Two-thirds of Americans don’t think they do,” Smotherman says. “So the real problem is not being trans, it’s that you don’t know us. You cannot authentically support a trans person if you’ve never met one. 

“That’s why my first goal with this Trans Advisory Board is to host a monthly Meet a Trans Person webinar. Not as a spectacle, as a debate, but as a human connection, and I will be charging every state chair with asking every one of their candidates up and down the board if they know a trans person. And if that person doesn’t know a trans person, I’m gonna have that state chair put them on that webinar.”

The LGBTQ caucus is also opening up associate membership to allies who do not identify as LGBTQ, in order to broaden support and connections over queer issues.

It’s also preparing for the inevitable attacks Republicans will throw at queer candidates and supporters of LGBTQ issues. 

“These attacks are going to come. You have to budget money proactively. You have to be ready to fight,” Meloy says. “There are some local party chairs who don’t want to recruit LGBTQ candidates to run because these issues might come up, right? That’s an absolutely ludicrous statement, but there are still people who need support in how to be ready and how to respond to these things that inevitably come.” 

“The oldest joke is that Democrats don’t have a spine. And when they come after us, and we do not reply, we play right into that.” 

Meloy also alluded to anti-LGBTQ tropes that queer people are out to harm children, and said that Democrats should be prepared to make the case that it’s actually Republicans who are protecting child abusers – for example, by suppressing the Epstein files.

“They are weak on this issue. Take the fight, empower your parties to say, ‘These people have nothing to stand on,’” Meloy says.

Continue Reading

Popular