News
New momentum for ENDA as Senate vote nears
Senate Dems united in support of legislation
Now that Sen. Joe Manchin has said he’ll vote for ENDA, the entire Senate Democratic caucus is on board (Photos public domain).
In the days after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced on Monday a floor vote would take place on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act before Thanksgiving, the Democratic caucus has become united on the bill, but some Republican senators are still undecided.
Following Reid’s announcement, the three Democratic holdouts — Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — signaled they’d support the legislation as Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) reportedly said he’s “inclined to support” the measure.
Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) expressed opposition to ENDA in its current form and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) may be wavering following his support for the bill in committee.
Reid said during his routine weekly news conference on Tuesday that he feels “pretty good” about ENDA, but wasn’t more specific about the timing of the vote.
“I don’t know if we’ll do it next week but we’re going to do it this work period,” Reid said. “The lead Democrat on that has been [Sen.] Jeff Merkley of Oregon and he said earlier today he has 59 supporters. So, that’s pretty good. That’s counting a new senator on Thursday.”
The bill, which has languished in Congress in various versions since the 1970s, would prohibit businesses from discriminating against or firing workers for being LGBT.
Merkley, ENDA’s chief sponsor, was optimistic when speaking with the Washington Blade on Capitol Hill about whether he thinks the bill will pass the Senate.
“I think it will,” Merkley said. “There’s just a tremendous sense that this is an issue of fairness, an issue of equality under our Constitution, an issue of opportunity. If you don’t have a chance to have fairness in getting a job, you really don’t have a fair chance to live the American dream.”
Merkley wouldn’t predict the number of votes that ENDA will receive on the Senate floor and deferred details about the timing of the vote to Democratic leadership, but said “momentum continues to build.”
Following Nelson’s signal earlier Tuesday that he would become the 54th sponsor of ENDA, Pryor, in a development first reported by Arkansas Times, announced he’d vote for the legislation on the floor. Michael Teague, a Pryor spokesperson, confirmed to the Blade that Pryor “will vote ‘yes’ on ENDA.”
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said Pryor’s support for ENDA is evidence that momentum for the legislation is “building fast.”
“We applaud him for standing up for basic fairness and predict that his decision will be supported by Arkansas business leaders from small to big,” Almeida said. “It helps that Wal-Mart, the state’s largest employer, has protected gay and lesbian workers from discrimination for nearly 10 years, and adopted workplace protections for transgender employees two years ago.”
The next day, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) signaled he’d also for vote ENDA. Asked whether he could confirm a tweet via the New York Times that the senator would vote for the bill, Jonathan Kott, a Manchin spokesperson, replied, “I can.”
Republicans hold differing views
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a senator known for his outreach to the LGBT community, was optimistic when speaking to the Blade about ENDA’s chances on the Senate floor.
“I think it has a very good chance of passing; I’m very positive about it,” Schumer said. “There are at least four Republicans who have either voted for it, or committed to voting for it, and five or six other who seem positive. I’m very optimistic.”
One Republican who may be in that column is Portman, who earlier this year after learning his son is gay. The Cincinnati Inquirer reported that Portman said Tuesday he’s “inclined to support” ENDA.
Caitlin Dunn, a Portman spokesperson, told the Blade afterward the Ohio Republican supports the basic premise of the legislation, but has concerns about “religious liberties.”
“Sen. Portman agrees with the underlying principle of ENDA and supports ending unjust discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation,” Portman said. “He doesn’t think one of his constituents should be able to be fired just because he or she is gay. The bill as it stands, however, is not perfect, and he continues to discuss his concerns with the bill’s sponsors and is exploring ways to strengthen the bill, including its religious liberties provisions.”
But other Republicans considered possible “yes” votes on ENDA don’t share the same view.
Flake, who voted for a gay-only version of ENDA without transgender protections as U.S. House member in 2007, told the Blade in response to how he’ll vote on the bill this time around, “If it’s the House version, I’ll vote for it, like I did then.”
When the Blade pointed out that the 2013 version of ENDA in the Senate is different from the 2007 version in the House, Flake replied, “If they don’t change it, I’ll vote ‘no.'”
Asked if it was the trans protections in the current version of ENDA to which he had objections, Flake replied, “Yeah. I have issues with that.”
Another Republican previously cited as a potential “yes” vote on ENDA, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) told the Blade he hadn’t seen ENDA, nor would he say if he was leaning to vote one way or the other.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had similarly said he hasn’t thoroughly examined ENDA when speaking with the Blade, but indicated some initial concerns about the legislation.
“I need to look at the bill,” Rubio said. “I just saw yesterday news reports that it might come up next week, so I’ll be studying it. I can just tell you my initial read on it. I have concerns about it that I’ll address at a later time.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), identified by Freedom to Work as a potential ENDA supporter, was similarly non-committal about the legislation.
“I haven’t had a chance to examine it carefully,” McCain told the Blade. “I don’t know when it’s coming up to tell you the truth.”
The Washington Post reported last week that Cindy McCain, the senator’s wife, signed a postcard to her husband given to her by a Human Rights Campaign volunteer encouraging him to support ENDA.
McCain acknowledged he has received the postcard as he maintained he hasn’t yet taken a position on ENDA.
“My wife is — as most women are — a very independent thinker and is entitled to her views, and I respect those views — not only of my wife, but of my daughter and my sons,” McCain said.
Additionally, the two Republicans that joined Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee in voting left the door open for them to vote “no” on the Senate floor when speaking with the Washington Blade.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of these Republicans, gave himself considerable latitude in reversing the “yes” vote that he delivered in committee on ENDA.
“I’m looking at it,” Hatch said. “I want to make sure I understand it fully before I make a decision.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the other Republican, also opened the door for her to vote “no” when asked if she’d vote on the floor for the bill she supported in committee.
“Obviously, we’re going to see what’s happening with amendments, but, yes, I was supportive of ENDA as it came out in committee, and I’m looking forward to seeing it on the floor,” Murkowski said.
Assuming these two Republicans continue their support for ENDA, the 54 sponsors of ENDA vote for it as well as Manchin and Pryor, the legislation now has the 59 votes that Reid cited during the news conference. That’s still one vote short of overcoming a filibuster.
Religious exemption draws concern
Meanwhile, concerns among some LGBT advocates persist over the religious exemption over fears the language is too broad and provides insufficient protection for LGBT people working at religious organizations.
The grassroots LGBT group GetEQUAL is petitioning Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to speak out against ENDA’s broad religious exemptions on the floor of the Senate, touting more than 5,600 petition signatures.
Heather Cronk, managing director of GetEQUAL, said her organization doesn’t support ENDA with the current religious exemption in place.
“We don’t support the current version of ENDA specifically because the broad religious exemptions contained in the bill will set a really harmful precedent that discrimination against LGBT folks is acceptable if the person or institution discriminating simply claims religion,” Cronk said.
Currently, ENDA has a religious exemption that provides leeway for religious organizations, like churches or religious schools, to discriminate against LGBT employees. That same leeway isn’t found under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious organizations from discriminating on the basis of race, gender or national origin.
The lack of support for ENDA from GetEQUAL — as well as concern expressed by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union — recalls the discontinued support for ENDA in 2007 when the transgender protections were dropped before a House vote took place. Despite this concern, groups such as Freedom to Work and the Human Rights Campaign continue to support ENDA with its current religious exemption.
Merkley reiterated on Tuesday he’s happy with the current language, but noted there will be a debate process and opportunity for amendments on the Senate floor.
“I’m very satisfied with the religious exemption” Merkley said. “I’m sure there’ll be a variety of amendments put forward, but I think it strikes the right balance.”
According to sources familiar with the bill, Merkley rejected an ACLU proposal prior to ENDA’s introduction to limit the religious exemption.
One question is whether the White House is actively engaged in pushing lawmakers to support ENDA. On Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the Blade that President Obama “will encourage continued movement” on ENDA, but wouldn’t go into details about legislative strategy.
Merkley said he hasn’t seen the White House or Obama engage in lobbying efforts on ENDA, but assumed that would take place at a later point in time.
“At this point, the conversation has been mostly within the Senate, but I’m sure they’ll have something to say about it before we’re done,” Merkley said.
Among the undecided senators claiming that he hasn’t heard from the White House is Toomey. Asked by the Blade whether Obama or the White House has reached out to him about the bill, Toomey said he hasn’t heard anything.
Even if the Senate approves ENDA, the more challenging obstacle is passage in the House, where Republican control will make progress significantly more challenging.
For his part, Schumer said the vote in the Senate will create momentum regardless of the fate of ENDA in the House.
“You never know,” Schumer said. “You build momentum in the Senate and it’s the right thing do. Remember what Martin Luther King said, ‘The arc of history is long, but it bends in the direction of justice.’ So, that’s what I say with the House of Representatives.”
UPDATE: This article has been updated in the aftermath of news that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) would sign on as an ENDA supporter.
Ecuador
Justicia reconoce delito de odio en caso de bullying en Instituto Nacional Mejía de Ecuador
Johana B se suicidó el 11 de abril de 2023
A casi tres años del suicidio de Johana B., quien estudió en el Instituto Nacional Mejía, colegio emblemático de Quito, el Tribunal de la Corte Nacional de Justicia ratificó la condena para el alumno responsable del acoso escolar que la llevó a quitarse la vida.
Según información de la Fiscalía, el fallo de última instancia deja en firme la condena de cuatro años de internamiento en un centro para adolescentes infractores, en una audiencia de casación pedida por la defensa del agresor, tres meses antes de que prescriba el caso.
Con la sentencia, este caso es uno de los primeros en el país en reconocer actos de odio por violencia de género, delito tipificado en el artículo 177 del Código Orgánico Penal Integral (COIP).
El suicidio de Johana B. ocurrió el 11 abril de 2023 y fue consecuencia del acoso escolar por estereotipos de género que enfrentó la estudiante por parte de su agresor, quien constantemente la insultaba y agredía por su forma de vestir, llevar el cabello corto o practicar actividades que hace años se consideraban exclusivamente para hombres, como ser mando de la Banda de Paz en el Instituto Nacional Mejía.
Desde la muerte de Johana, su familia buscaba justicia. Su padre, José, en una entrevista concedida a edición cientonce para la investigación periodística Los suicidios que quedan en el clóset a causa de la omisión estatal afirmó que su hija era acosada por su compañero y otres estudiantes con apodos como “marimacha”, lo que también fue corroborado en los testimonios recogidos por la Unidad de Justicia Juvenil No. 4 de la Fiscalía.
Los resultados de la autopsia psicológica y del examen antropológico realizados tras la muerte de Johana confirmaron las versiones de sus compañeras y docentes: que su agresor la acosó de manera sistemática durante dos años. Los empujones, jalones de cabello o burlas, incluso por su situación económica, eran constantes en el aula de clase.
La violencia que recibió Johana escaló cuando su compañero le dio un codazo en la espalda ocasionándole una lesión que le imposibilitó caminar y asistir a clases.
Días después del hecho, la adolescente se quitó la vida en su casa, tras escuchar que la madre del agresor se negó a pagar la mitad del valor de una tomografía para determinar la lesión en su espalda, tal como lo había acordado previamente con sus padres y frente al personal del DECE (Departamento de Consejería Estudiantil del colegio), según versiones de su familia y la Fiscalía.
#AFONDO | Johana se suicidó el 11 de abril de 2023, tras ser víctima de acoso escolar por no cumplir con estereotipos femeninos 😢.
Dos semanas antes, uno de sus compañeros le dio un codazo en la espalda, ocasionándole una lesión que le imposibilitó caminar 🧵 pic.twitter.com/bXKUs9YYOm
— EdicionCientonce (@EdCientonce) September 3, 2025
“Era una chica linda, fuerte, alegre. Siempre nos llevamos muy bien, hemos compartido todo. Nos dejó muchos recuerdos y todos nos sentimos tristes; siempre estamos pensando en ella. Es un vacío tan grande aquí, en este lugar”, expresó José a Edición Cientonce el año pasado.
Para la fiscal del caso y de la Unidad de Justicia Juvenil de la Fiscalía, Martha Reino, el suicidio de la adolescente fue un agravante que se contempló durante la audiencia de juzgamiento de marzo de 2024, según explicó a este medio el año pasado. Desde entonces, la familia del agresor presentó un recurso de casación en la Corte Nacional de Justicia, que provocó la dilatación del proceso.
En el fallo de última instancia, el Tribunal también dispuso que el agresor pague $3.000 a la familia de Johana B. como reparación integral. Además, el adolescente deberá recibir medidas socioeducativas, de acuerdo al artículo 385 del Código Orgánico de la Niñez y Adolescencia, señala la Fiscalía.
El caso de Johana también destapó las omisiones y negligencias del personal del DECE y docentes del Instituto Nacional Mejía. En la etapa de instrucción fiscal se comprobó que no se aplicaron los protocolos respectivos para proteger a la víctima.
De hecho, la Fiscalía conoció el caso a raíz de la denuncia que presentó su padre, José, y no por el DECE, aseguró la fiscal el año pasado a Edición Cientonce.
Pese a estas omisiones presentadas en el proceso, el fallo de última instancia sólo ratificó la condena para el estudiante.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
4th Circuit rules against discharged service members with HIV
Judges overturned lower court ruling
A federal appeals court on Wednesday reversed a lower court ruling that struck down the Pentagon’s ban on people with HIV enlisting in the military.
The conservative three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 2024 ruling that had declared the Defense Department and Army policies barring all people living with HIV from military service unconstitutional.
The 4th Circuit, which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, held that the military has a “rational basis” for maintaining medical standards that categorically exclude people living with HIV from enlisting, even those with undetectable viral loads — meaning their viral levels are so low that they cannot transmit the virus and can perform all duties without health limitations.
This decision could have implications for other federal circuits dealing with HIV discrimination cases, as well as for nationwide military policy.
The case, Wilkins v. Hegseth, was filed in November 2022 by Lambda Legal and other HIV advocacy groups on behalf of three individual plaintiffs who could not enlist or re-enlist based on their HIV status, as well as the organizational plaintiff Minority Veterans of America.
The plaintiffs include a transgender woman who was honorably discharged from the Army for being HIV-positive, a gay man who was in the Georgia National Guard but cannot join the Army, and a cisgender woman who cannot enlist in the Army because she has HIV, along with the advocacy organization Minority Veterans of America.
Isaiah Wilkins, the gay man, was separated from the Army Reserves and disenrolled from the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School after testing positive for HIV. His legal counsel argued that the military’s policy violates his equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
In August 2024, a U.S. District Court sided with Wilkins, forcing the military to remove the policy barring all people living with HIV from joining the U.S. Armed Services. The court cited that this policy — and ones like it that discriminate based on HIV status — are “irrational, arbitrary, and capricious” and “contribute to the ongoing stigma surrounding HIV-positive individuals while actively hampering the military’s own recruitment goals.”
The Pentagon appealed the decision, seeking to reinstate the ban, and succeeded with Wednesday’s court ruling.
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, one of the three-judge panel nominated to the 4th Circuit by President George H. W. Bush, wrote in his judicial opinion that the military is “a specialized society separate from civilian society,” and that the military’s “professional judgments in this case [are] reasonably related to its military mission,” and thus “we conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law.”
“We are deeply disappointed that the 4th Circuit has chosen to uphold discrimination over medical reality,” said Gregory Nevins, senior counsel and employment fairness project director for Lambda Legal. “Modern science has unequivocally shown that HIV is a chronic, treatable condition. People with undetectable viral loads can deploy anywhere, perform all duties without limitation, and pose no transmission risk to others. This ruling ignores decades of medical advancement and the proven ability of people living with HIV to serve with distinction.”
“As both the 4th Circuit and the district court previously held, deference to the military does not extend to irrational decision-making,” said Scott Schoettes, who argued the case on appeal. “Today, servicemembers living with HIV are performing all kinds of roles in the military and are fully deployable into combat. Denying others the opportunity to join their ranks is just as irrational as the military’s former policy.”
New York
Lawsuit to restore Stonewall Pride flag filed
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group brought case in federal court
Lambda Legal and Washington Litigation Group filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument in New York earlier this month.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asks the court to rule the removal of the Pride flag at the Stonewall National Monument is unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedures Act — and demands it be restored.
The National Park Service issued a memorandum on Jan. 21 restricting the flags that are allowed to fly at National Parks. The directive was signed by Trump-appointed National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron.
“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points,” the letter from the National Park Service reads. “The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose.”
That “official purpose” is the grounds on which Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group are hoping a judge will agree with them — that the Pride flag at the Stonewall National Monument, the birthplace of LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S., is justified to fly there.
The plaintiffs include the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Charles Beal, Village Preservation, and Equality New York.
The defendants include Interior Secretary Doug Burgum; Bowron; and Amy Sebring, the Superintendent of Manhattan Sites for the National Park Service.
“The government’s decision is deeply disturbing and is just the latest example of the Trump administration targeting the LGBTQ+ community. The Park Service’s policies permit flying flags that provide historical context at monuments,” said Alexander Kristofcak, a lawyer with the Washington Litigation Group, which is lead counsel for plaintiffs. “That is precisely what the Pride flag does. It provides important context for a monument that honors a watershed moment in LGBTQ+ history. At best, the government misread its regulations. At worst, the government singled out the LGBTQ+ community. Either way, its actions are unlawful.”
“Stonewall is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement,” said Beal, the president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. The foundation’s mission is to protect and extend the legacy of Gilbert Baker, the creator of the Pride flag.
“The Pride flag is recognized globally as a symbol of hope and liberation for the LGBTQ+ community, whose efforts and resistance define this monument. Removing it would, in fact, erase its history and the voices Stonewall honors,” Beal added.
The APA was first enacted in 1946 following President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s creation of multiple new government agencies under the New Deal. As these agencies began to find their footing, Congress grew increasingly worried that the expanding powers these autonomous federal agencies possessed might grow too large without regulation.
The 79th Congress passed legislation to minimize the scope of these new agencies — and to give them guardrails for their work. In the APA, there are four outlined goals: 1) to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures, and rules; 2) to provide for public participation in the rule-making process, for instance through public commenting; 3) to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rule-making and adjudication; and 4) to define the scope of judicial review.
In layman’s terms, the APA was designed “to avoid dictatorship and central planning,” as George Shepherd wrote in the Northwestern Law Review in 1996, explaining its function.
Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group are arguing that not only is the flag justified to fly at the Stonewall National Monument, making the directive obsolete, but also that the National Park Service violated the APA by bypassing the second element outlined in the law.
“The Pride flag at the Stonewall National Monument honors the history of the fight for LGBTQ+ liberation. It is an integral part of the story this site was created to tell,” said Lambda Legal Chief Legal Advocacy Officer Douglas F. Curtis in a statement. “Its removal continues the Trump administration’s disregard for what the law actually requires in their endless campaign to target our community for erasure and we will not let it stand.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the NPS for comment, and received no response.
Justicia reconoce delito de odio en caso de bullying en Instituto Nacional Mejía de Ecuador
Radical reframing highlights the ‘Wuthering’ highs and lows of a classic
4th Circuit rules against discharged service members with HIV
PHOTOS: Clash
Gay Treasury Secretary’s silence on LGBTQ issues shows he is scum
Magic is happening for Round House’s out stage manager
‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
Home is where the heart is
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
European Parliament resolution backs ‘full recognition of trans women as women’
-
Theater5 days agoMagic is happening for Round House’s out stage manager
-
Baltimore3 days ago
‘Heated Rivalry’ fandom exposes LGBTQ divide in Baltimore
-
Real Estate3 days ago
Home is where the heart is
-
District of Columbia3 days ago
Deon Jones speaks about D.C. Department of Corrections bias lawsuit settlement
