Politics
Anti-gay marriage bill draws ire of LGBT advocates
Legislation could undermine advances made after court ruling against DOMA
Rep. Raúl Rafael Labrador (R-Idaho) has introduced the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key).
A new bill that aims to protect organizations that oppose same-sex marriage is invoking the ire of LGBT advocates, who call it subterfuge to undermine advances in marriage equality made in the past year.
Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), a Tea Party Republican, on Thursday introduced the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act, which is purportedly aimed to prohibit discrimination in the tax code against organizations that exercise “religious conscience” against same-sex marriage.
“Regardless of your ideology, we can all agree about the importance of religious liberty in America,” Labrador said. “Our bill will protect freedom of conscience for those who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue.”
The legislation enjoys bipartisan support right off the bat. Among the 60 original co-sponsors are Reps. Steve Scalise, chair of the Republican Study Committee as well as conservative Democrats Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.).
Others co-sponsors are Republicans well-known for their anti-gay views: Reps. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).
According to the Labrador statement, most religious institutions fall within the 501(c) portion of the U.S. tax code, which allows for tax exemption. Further, the statement contends if the bill were passed, no individual or institution that opposes marriage equality would lose that exemption for purposes of federal taxes.
An array of conservative organizations and religious groups have endorsed the legislation, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Organization for Marriage, Family Research Council, and the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The bill is introduced following the controversy that ensued after the Internal Revenue Service apologized for targeting political groups with closer scrutiny based on names or political themes if they applied for tax-exempt status.
LGBT advocates responded to the introduction of the bill by saying it would rescind protections that married same-sex couples have received in the wake of the Supreme Court decision against the Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, called the bill “a sweeping Trojan Horse proposal” that would undermine constitutional protections.
“Decades of civil rights struggle, and long experience with both federal and state non-discrimination statutes, have made clear that we don’t need to gut non-discrimination laws to protect true religious freedom, and neither private religious views nor prejudice should get a special license to discriminate in the public sphere,” Wolfson said.
Freedom to Marry identified repercussions of the bill that it says are particularly “egregious”:
* Allowing businesses to refuse to provide Family & Medical Leave Act leave for the same-sex spouse of an employee to care for a sick loved one and to deny pension protections to married same-sex couples.
* Allowing federal employees to refuse to process the tax returns or Social Security claims of married same-sex couples.
* Allowing individuals to pick and choose whether they want to comply with federal laws, simply by invoking religious views.
Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, a lesbian and the Third Way’s director of social policy and politics, also said the bill presents more problems than simply protecting the tax status of religious organizations.
“The sponsors and press clips so far have focused on the idea of protecting churches and religious organizations from losing their tax status due to their views on marriage for gay couples (something that hasn’t ever been an issue), but the effect of the bill would actually be much broader and incredibly problematic,” Erickson Hatalsky said.
Among the problems with the bill that Erickson Hatalsky identified are a potential violation of the Establishment Clause under the First Amendment as well as contravening the Bush-established policy of “Charitable Choice”, which says that when a program is federally funded, a religious organization may not turn people away.
Further, Erickson Hatalsky said the bill as written isn’t just limited to married same-sex couples, but would allow federal beneficiaries to discriminate against anyone who’s had sexual relations outside of an opposite-sex marriage.
“That means a government-funded health clinic could be able to refuse to provide prenatal care to an at-risk pregnant woman because she is unmarried,” Erickson Hatalsky said. “Again, that goes against our longstanding principle that when taxpayer funds are involved, an organization must serve all comers.”
Congress
Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage
Roughly 1.8 million LGBTQ Americans rely on Medicaid
The “Big, Beautiful Bill” heads to President Donald Trump’s desk following the vote by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday, which saw two nays from GOP members and unified opposition from the entire Democratic caucus.
To partially offset the cost of tax breaks that disproportionately favor the wealthy, the bill contains massive cuts to Medicaid and social safety net programs like food assistance for the poor while adding a projected $3.3 billion to the deficit.
Policy wise, the signature legislation of Trump’s second term rolls back clean energy tax credits passed under the Biden-Harris administration while beefing up funding for defense and border security.
Roughly 13 percent of LGBTQ adults in the U.S., about 1.8 million people, rely on Medicaid as their primary health insurer, compared to seven percent of non-LGBTQ adults, according to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute think tank on sexual orientation and gender identities.
In total, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts will cause more than 10 million Americans to lose their coverage under Medicaid and anywhere from three to five million to lose their care under Affordable Care Act marketplace plans.
A number of Republicans in the House and Senate opposed the bill reasoning that they might face political consequences for taking away access to healthcare for, particularly, low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid. Poorer voters flocked to Trump in last year’s presidential election, exit polls show.
A provision that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation — reportedly after the first trans member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and the first lesbian U.S. senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), shored up unified opposition to the proposal among Congressional Democrats.
Congress
Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor
One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul
Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”
Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.
Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.
To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.
A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”
Congress
House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms
Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move
A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.
Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.
The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).
The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”
“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.
They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”
“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.
Maryland’s oldest rural gay bar — and one of the last — is a log cabin in the woods
USAID’s demise: America’s global betrayal of trust with LGBTQ people
Manchester is vibrant tapestry of culture, history, and Pride
Embracing the chaos can be part of the fun
Lesbian feminist becomes South African MP
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
Va. court allows conversion therapy despite law banning it
Doug Spearman takes his chance
