The 2016 conventions for Democrats and Republicans are seven months away, but LGBT advocates are already calling for new language to boost LGBT inclusion in the party platforms compared to years past.
The most organized of these efforts is a Republican campaign newly dubbed as simply the “Platform Reform,” which was first launched last year in an attempt to remove the opposition to same-sex marriage from the 2016 GOP platform in favor of more inclusive language.
Jerri Ann Henry, campaign manager for Platform Reform, said the efforts of the campaign since its launch energized Republicans who disagree with the existing platform language not only opposing same-sex marriage, but also endorsing a U.S. constitutional amendment against it.
“A lot of people don’t read the platform, so it’s great to show them this is what it actually says and this is what it could say,” Henry said. “We’ve met with overwhelming support as we’ve met with people in the states. People, regardless of where they stood on this issue, they didn’t approve of the language in the platform. It’s very hateful and it goes to extremes that aren’t necessary in the Republican platform.”
Henry said the 2012 platform includes anti-LGBT language in five places, including support for the now-defunct gay ban in the Boy Scouts. Much of this language, Henry said, is out of date because of changing laws, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
“We believe it’s not consistent with Republican values,” Henry said. “We’re pro-limited government, we’re very pro-family. Having more families is a big deal in our community and makes for a more stable society. We would like to replace the hateful language with inclusive language that reinforces our commitment to the values of limited government, individual freedom and family, but is inclusive of all those views.”
Outreach efforts of the campaign, Henry said, have consisted of media trips to eight states: New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada, Texas, Michigan, Ohio and Colorado. They were chosen, Henry said, because they’re either early primary states, critical to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in favor of same-sex marriage or will have a lot of delegates at the upcoming Republican convention in Cleveland.
The three-paragraph plank the campaign proposes emphasizes the Republican Party’s belief in marriage as an institution that strengthens freedom and families, but also includes language recognizing the debate on same-sex marriage within the Republican Party without articulating an objection to it.
“We recognize that there are diverse and sincerely held views on civil marriage within the Party, and that support for allowing same-sex couples the freedom to marry has grown substantially in our own Party,” the plank concludes. “Given this journey that so many Americans, including Republicans, are on, we encourage and welcome a thoughtful conversation among Republicans about the meaning and importance of marriage, and commit our Party to respect for all families and fairness and freedom for all Americans.”
Although the Republican Party has a reputation for opposition to same-sex marriage, recent polls indicate differing views of the party and most younger Republicans support same-sex marriage. A 2014 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 56 percent of Republicans under the age of 45 support marriage rights for gay couples.
Upon its launch, the campaign was under the umbrella of Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry, a project of the New York-based LGBT group Freedom to Marry. With the larger organization closing its doors in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling for marriage equality, the campaign has found a new home with the American Unity Fund, a pro-LGBT Republican group founded by billionaire philanthropist Paul Singer.
Henry said the shift represents a change in the nature of the campaign, which now will focus on the “real brass tacks” of getting the proposed language in the platform.
“If the first part of this campaign was about raising awareness and bringing attention to the needs to raise the platform, now we’re in the actual boots-on-the-ground, recruiting delegates in all 50 states and meeting with RNC committee members … and working on actually placing people on the platform committee and actually changing the language,” Henry said.
The Republican platform committee, Henry said, is put together during an election year and mostly consists of delegates chosen at state conventions. The committee usually meets in the days before the convention, Henry said, which this year takes place July 18-21.
Although the platform isn’t binding on Republicans, Henry said the document matters because it’s crafted by state delegates “to determine what policies best represent our party and their conservative values.” Additionally, she said many members of the Republican Party in many states based their state platforms on the national platform, such as Massachusetts, which enacted language against same-sex marriage last year.
The new campaign is modeled off a 2012 campaign led by Freedom to Marry that sought to encourage the Democrats for the first time to endorse same-sex marriage as part of that year’s platform. The proposed language, or the idea same-sex marriage should be included in the document, was endorsed by high-profile Democrats like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 22 U.S. senators and others. The result was language in the platform endorsing same-sex marriage shortly before voters went to the polls in four states — Minnesota, Maryland, Washington and Maine — to decide the issue.
Meanwhile, Log Cabin Republicans, which was credentialed to attend the platform committee, sought to keep out language in the 2012 Republican platform endorsing a U.S. constitutional amendment agains same-sex marriage. That effort proved unsuccessful. The 2012 Republican platform was against same-sex marriage and supported an anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment.
Henry said she’s light on endorsements for the proposed language, saying many Republicans are bound to support the existing anti-gay language in the 2012 platform. Henry added a couple RNC members are supportive, but she wasn’t immediately comfortable naming them.
Gregory Angelo, president of Log Cabin Republicans, was initially hesitant about the language when it was first proposed in 2014, but now says he supports the proposed plank.
“Log Cabin Republicans is committed to expunging anti-gay language from the Republican Party platform, and we support the work our allies at American Unity Fund and Platform Reform are doing to achieve that end. I’ve long said that with platforms, less is always more,” Angelo said. “Removing any mention of a quixotic and politically divisive Federal Marriage Amendment from the GOP platform would be a welcome development at the convention.”
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who’s considered the strongest Republican supporter of LGBT rights, wouldn’t explicitly endorse the proposed language, but said the Republican Party platform should take into account the U.S. Supreme Court ruling for same-sex marriage.
“This convention is taking place in 2016, not 1916, so I sincerely hope our party platform includes language that is inclusive and accepting of all people,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “Marriage equality is now the law of the land and the GOP should reflect the changes in our society instead of wishing them away.”
Neither the anti-LGBT Family Research Council nor the National Organization for Marriage responded to the Blade’s request for comment on whether they object to the proposed language in the platform.
Henry said she doesn’t think there’s a specific concerted effort to offset the platform campaign, but acknowledged Republicans designated to the platform committee in years past “will be dedicated to keeping the language as it is.”
One major obstacle to the reform is the Republican presidential nominee, whose views are typically reflected in the platform. Each of the 2016 candidates is opposed to same-sex marriage. Some candidates high in the polls, like Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, have publicly backed a U.S. constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.
Henry was undaunted by the prospects of those candidates becoming the Republican nominee, saying many of their supporters disagree with them on marriage and she’s working with every presidential campaign.
“In some states, there are Ted Cruz supporters who may disagree with him on this issue, but agree with him because of his stance on ethanol, taxes and other things,” Henry said. “And if that’s the case, we want to make sure those people are on his delegate slate. That’s where, I think, really working on the ground in each of the different states with the people who want to be delegates for the campaign is critical. We’ll have delegates from every campaign.”
A spokesperson for the Republican National Committee told the Blade that platform discussions won’t begin “until well into 2016.”
Advocates want Equality Act in platforms
Other LGBT advocates had proposals for LGBT language they wanted in both the Republican and Democratic party platforms, but weren’t as specific in terms of language.
Rea Carey, executive director of the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the platforms provide an opportunity for the parties to step up their support for LGBT rights and support for marriage equality isn’t enough.
“A party platform that includes anything less than a call for full federal non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people and their families will be seen as weak, behind the times and not honoring the contributions that LGBTQ people make to society,” Carey said.
Carey also had a litany of legislative priorities she wants in the platforms, including support for the Equality Act, in the name of “freedom, justice and equality to everyone in the U.S.”
“The parties should include explicit support for the Equality Act, comprehensive immigration reform, reproductive rights, wage and workplace reforms, criminal justice reform, the restoration of voting rights, and policing reform,” Carey said. “We also urge parties not to play to the opponents of equality. There are millions of LGBTQ and ally votes out there — enough votes to swing elections at every level and our support should not be taken for granted.”
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said platforms are “symbolic and dull tools for policy change,” but have worth in shedding light on issues important to communities, including transgender people.
“All policy areas are trans policy areas, but of particular interest to NCTE would be making sure that parties do not include negative mentions, scapegoating or fear mongering of trans people,” Keisling said. “On the proactive policy side, we would love to see a commitment to advancing, solidifying and enforcing civil rights laws such as supporting the passage of the Equality Act.”
JoDee Winterhof, senior vice president of the Human Rights Campaign for policy and political affairs, enumerated a variety of LGBT issues her organization would like to see addressed in the platforms.
“We plan to urge both parties to include language in their platforms that address the patchwork of laws, the discrimination, and the violence that LGBT Americans continue to encounter in their daily lives,” Winterhof said. “It should be meaningful and specific on a range of key issues from full federal non-discrimination protections in the form of the Equality Act, to addressing the scourge of violence against transgender Americans to making progress in the fight against HIV and more.”
Matt McTighe, executive director of Freedom for All Americans, was more general about the kind of LGBT inclusion he said his organization seeks in the party platforms.
“Democrats and Republicans alike should support the American values of building stable families and protecting freedom, both of which are strengthened when all hardworking Americans can live and work without fear of discrimination,” McTighe said. “Taking steps to ensure explicit protections for gay, bisexual and transgender people throughout the country is good for our country’s well-being and prosperity. Both the Democratic and Republican presidential platforms should move towards a place of fairness and freedom for all people under the law.”
Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told the Blade in September she expects inclusion of the Equality Act in the 2016 platform, saying, “I would expect so. I can’t envision our platform not including that.”
(The DNC is now pushing back on that characterization, saying Wasserman Schultz isn’t responsible for the platform and that she didn’t say she’s expecting language on the Equality Act, but instead that she would be surprised if it isn’t in there. The Blade stands by its reporting.)
TJ Helmstetter, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, said the process for drafting the platform changes each cycle and is still underway. Each state has to elect its participants to the convention by June 26, including for the platform committee, which will initiate the drafting process, he said.
“I think as the chairwoman said to you when you interviewed her, I think we’d be surprised if there weren’t that kind of inclusion in the platform in terms of the Equality Act specifically given the support the Equality Act has from our three presidential candidates, and the president and the vice president and 80 percent of Democratic members of Congress,” Helmstetter said. “But again, that really is dependent on the platform process.”
Featured Local Savings
Honoring the legacy of New Orleans’ 1973 UpStairs Lounge fire
Why the arson attack that killed 32 gay men still resonates 50 years later
On June 23 of last year, I held the microphone as a gay man in the New Orleans City Council Chamber and related a lost piece of queer history to the seven council members. I told this story to disabuse all New Orleanians of the notion that silence and accommodation, in the face of institutional and official failures, are a path to healing.
The story I related to them began on a typical Sunday night at a second-story bar on the fringe of New Orleans’ French Quarter in 1973, where working-class men would gather around a white baby grand piano and belt out the lyrics to a song that was the anthem of their hidden community, “United We Stand” by the Brotherhood of Man.
“United we stand,” the men would sing together, “divided we fall” — the words epitomizing the ethos of their beloved UpStairs Lounge bar, an egalitarian free space that served as a forerunner to today’s queer safe havens.
Around that piano in the 1970s Deep South, gays and lesbians, white and Black queens, Christians and non-Christians, and even early gender minorities could cast aside the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the times to find acceptance and companionship for a moment.
For regulars, the UpStairs Lounge was a miracle, a small pocket of acceptance in a broader world where their very identities were illegal.
On the Sunday night of June 24, 1973, their voices were silenced in a murderous act of arson that claimed 32 lives and still stands as the deadliest fire in New Orleans history — and the worst mass killing of gays in 20th century America.
As 13 fire companies struggled to douse the inferno, police refused to question the chief suspect, even though gay witnesses identified and brought the soot-covered man to officers idly standing by. This suspect, an internally conflicted gay-for-pay sex worker named Rodger Dale Nunez, had been ejected from the UpStairs Lounge screaming the word “burn” minutes before, but New Orleans police rebuffed the testimony of fire survivors on the street and allowed Nunez to disappear.
As the fire raged, police denigrated the deceased to reporters on the street: “Some thieves hung out there, and you know this was a queer bar.”
For days afterward, the carnage met with official silence. With no local gay political leaders willing to step forward, national Gay Liberation-era figures like Rev. Troy Perry of the Metropolitan Community Church flew in to “help our bereaved brothers and sisters” — and shatter officialdom’s code of silence.
Perry broke local taboos by holding a press conference as an openly gay man. “It’s high time that you people, in New Orleans, Louisiana, got the message and joined the rest of the Union,” Perry said.
Two days later, on June 26, 1973, as families hesitated to step forward to identify their kin in the morgue, UpStairs Lounge owner Phil Esteve stood in his badly charred bar, the air still foul with death. He rebuffed attempts by Perry to turn the fire into a call for visibility and progress for homosexuals.
“This fire had very little to do with the gay movement or with anything gay,” Esteve told a reporter from The Philadelphia Inquirer. “I do not want my bar or this tragedy to be used to further any of their causes.”
Conspicuously, no photos of Esteve appeared in coverage of the UpStairs Lounge fire or its aftermath — and the bar owner also remained silent as he witnessed police looting the ashes of his business.
“Phil said the cash register, juke box, cigarette machine and some wallets had money removed,” recounted Esteve’s friend Bob McAnear, a former U.S. Customs officer. “Phil wouldn’t report it because, if he did, police would never allow him to operate a bar in New Orleans again.”
The next day, gay bar owners, incensed at declining gay bar traffic amid an atmosphere of anxiety, confronted Perry at a clandestine meeting. “How dare you hold your damn news conferences!” one business owner shouted.
Ignoring calls for gay self-censorship, Perry held a 250-person memorial for the fire victims the following Sunday, July 1, culminating in mourners defiantly marching out the front door of a French Quarter church into waiting news cameras. “Reverend Troy Perry awoke several sleeping giants, me being one of them,” recalled Charlene Schneider, a lesbian activist who walked out of that front door with Perry.
Esteve doubted the UpStairs Lounge story’s capacity to rouse gay political fervor. As the coroner buried four of his former patrons anonymously on the edge of town, Esteve quietly collected at least $25,000 in fire insurance proceeds. Less than a year later, he used the money to open another gay bar called the Post Office, where patrons of the UpStairs Lounge — some with visible burn scars — gathered but were discouraged from singing “United We Stand.”
New Orleans cops neglected to question the chief arson suspect and closed the investigation without answers in late August 1973. Gay elites in the city’s power structure began gaslighting the mourners who marched with Perry into the news cameras, casting suspicion on their memories and re-characterizing their moment of liberation as a stunt.
When a local gay journalist asked in April 1977, “Where are the gay activists in New Orleans?,” Esteve responded that there were none, because none were needed. “We don’t feel we’re discriminated against,” Esteve said. “New Orleans gays are different from gays anywhere else… Perhaps there is some correlation between the amount of gay activism in other cities and the degree of police harassment.”
An attitude of nihilism and disavowal descended upon the memory of the UpStairs Lounge victims, goaded by Esteve and fellow gay entrepreneurs who earned their keep via gay patrons drowning their sorrows each night instead of protesting the injustices that kept them drinking.
Into the 1980s, the story of the UpStairs Lounge all but vanished from conversation — with the exception of a few sanctuaries for gay political debate such as the local lesbian bar Charlene’s, run by the activist Charlene Schneider.
By 1988, the 15th anniversary of the fire, the UpStairs Lounge narrative comprised little more than a call for better fire codes and indoor sprinklers. UpStairs Lounge survivor Stewart Butler summed it up: “A tragedy that, as far as I know, no good came of.”
Finally, in 1991, at Stewart Butler and Charlene Schneider’s nudging, the UpStairs Lounge story became aligned with the crusade of liberated gays and lesbians seeking equal rights in Louisiana. The halls of power responded with intermittent progress. The New Orleans City Council, horrified by the story but not yet ready to take its look in the mirror, enacted an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and public accommodations that Dec. 12 — more than 18 years after the fire.
“I believe the fire was the catalyst for the anger to bring us all to the table,” Schneider told The Times-Picayune, a tacit rebuke to Esteve’s strategy of silent accommodation. Even Esteve seemed to change his stance with time, granting a full interview with the first UpStairs Lounge scholar Johnny Townsend sometime around 1989.
Most of the figures in this historic tale are now deceased. What’s left is an enduring story that refused to go gently. The story now echoes around the world — a musical about the UpStairs Lounge fire recently played in Tokyo, translating the gay underworld of the 1973 French Quarter for Japanese audiences.
When I finished my presentation to the City Council last June, I looked up to see the seven council members in tears. Unanimously, they approved a resolution acknowledging the historic failures of city leaders in the wake of the UpStairs Lounge fire.
Council members personally apologized to UpStairs Lounge families and survivors seated in the chamber in a symbolic act that, though it could not bring back those who died, still mattered greatly to those whose pain had been denied, leaving them to grieve alone. At long last, official silence and indifference gave way to heartfelt words of healing.
The way Americans remember the past is an active, ongoing process. Our collective memory is malleable, but it matters because it speaks volumes about our maturity as a people, how we acknowledge the past’s influence in our lives, and how it shapes the examples we set for our youth. Do we grapple with difficult truths, or do we duck accountability by defaulting to nostalgia and bluster? Or worse, do we simply ignore the past until it fades into a black hole of ignorance and indifference?
I believe that a factual retelling of the UpStairs Lounge tragedy — and how, 50 years onward, it became known internationally — resonates beyond our current divides. It reminds queer and non-queer Americans that ignoring the past holds back the present, and that silence is no cure for what ails a participatory nation.
Silence isolates. Silence gaslights and shrouds. It preserves the power structures that scapegoat the disempowered.
Solidarity, on the other hand, unites. Solidarity illuminates a path forward together. Above all, solidarity transforms the downtrodden into a resounding chorus of citizens — in the spirit of voices who once gathered ‘round a white baby grand piano and sang, joyfully and loudly, “United We Stand.”
Robert W. Fieseler is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of “Tinderbox: the Untold Story of the Up Stairs Lounge Fire and the Rise of Gay Liberation.”
New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences
Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings
The U.S. Supreme Court, after a decision overturning Roe v. Wade that still leaves many reeling, is starting a new term with justices slated to revisit the issue of LGBTQ rights.
In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court will return to the issue of whether or not providers of custom-made goods can refuse service to LGBTQ customers on First Amendment grounds. In this case, the business owner is Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado who wants to opt out of providing her graphic design services for same-sex weddings despite the civil rights law in her state.
Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, said in an interview with the Blade, “it’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake” for LGBTQ people depending on the outcome of the case.
“This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law,” Pizer said. “And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having a non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you.”
The upcoming arguments and decision in the 303 Creative case mark a return to LGBTQ rights for the Supreme Court, which had no lawsuit to directly address the issue in its previous term, although many argued the Dobbs decision put LGBTQ rights in peril and threatened access to abortion for LGBTQ people.
And yet, the 303 Creative case is similar to other cases the Supreme Court has previously heard on the providers of services seeking the right to deny services based on First Amendment grounds, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In both of those cases, however, the court issued narrow rulings on the facts of litigation, declining to issue sweeping rulings either upholding non-discrimination principles or First Amendment exemptions.
Pizer, who signed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to 303 Creative, said the case is “similar in the goals” of the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation on the basis they both seek exemptions to the same non-discrimination law that governs their business, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, and seek “to further the social and political argument that they should be free to refuse same-sex couples or LGBTQ people in particular.”
“So there’s the legal goal, and it connects to the social and political goals and in that sense, it’s the same as Masterpiece,” Pizer said. “And so there are multiple problems with it again, as a legal matter, but also as a social matter, because as with the religion argument, it flows from the idea that having something to do with us is endorsing us.”
One difference: the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation stemmed from an act of refusal of service after owner, Jack Phillips, declined to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. No act of discrimination in the past, however, is present in the 303 Creative case. The owner seeks to put on her website a disclaimer she won’t provide services for same-sex weddings, signaling an intent to discriminate against same-sex couples rather than having done so.
As such, expect issues of standing — whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit — to be hashed out in arguments as well as whether the litigation is ripe for review as justices consider the case. It’s not hard to see U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to lead the court to reach less sweeping decisions (sometimes successfully, and sometimes in the Dobbs case not successfully) to push for a decision along these lines.
Another key difference: The 303 Creative case hinges on the argument of freedom of speech as opposed to the two-fold argument of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise in the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation. Although 303 Creative requested in its petition to the Supreme Court review of both issues of speech and religion, justices elected only to take up the issue of free speech in granting a writ of certiorari (or agreement to take up a case). Justices also declined to accept another question in the petition request of review of the 1990 precedent in Smith v. Employment Division, which concluded states can enforce neutral generally applicable laws on citizens with religious objections without violating the First Amendment.
Representing 303 Creative in the lawsuit is Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has sought to undermine civil rights laws for LGBTQ people with litigation seeking exemptions based on the First Amendment, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in a Sept. 12 legal brief signed by her and other attorneys that a decision in favor of 303 Creative boils down to a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.
“Colorado and the United States still contend that CADA only regulates sales transactions,” the brief says. “But their cases do not apply because they involve non-expressive activities: selling BBQ, firing employees, restricting school attendance, limiting club memberships, and providing room access. Colorado’s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actor’s speech.”
Pizer, however, pushed back strongly on the idea a decision in favor of 303 Creative would be as focused as Alliance Defending Freedom purports it would be, arguing it could open the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people.
“One way to put it is art tends to be in the eye of the beholder,” Pizer said. “Is something of a craft, or is it art? I feel like I’m channeling Lily Tomlin. Remember ‘soup and art’? We have had an understanding that whether something is beautiful or not is not the determining factor about whether something is protected as artistic expression. There’s a legal test that recognizes if this is speech, whose speech is it, whose message is it? Would anyone who was hearing the speech or seeing the message understand it to be the message of the customer or of the merchants or craftsmen or business person?”
Despite the implications in the case for LGBTQ rights, 303 Creative may have supporters among LGBTQ people who consider themselves proponents of free speech.
One joint friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, written by Dale Carpenter, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues the case is an opportunity to affirm the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive.
“Distinguishing expressive from non-expressive products in some contexts might be hard, but the Tenth Circuit agreed that Smith’s product does not present a hard case,” the brief says. “Yet that court (and Colorado) declined to recognize any exemption for products constituting speech. The Tenth Circuit has effectively recognized a state interest in subjecting the creation of speech itself to antidiscrimination laws.”
Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet set, but may be announced soon. Set to defend the state of Colorado and enforcement of its non-discrimination law in the case is Colorado Solicitor General Eric Reuel Olson. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would grant the request to the U.S. solicitor general to present arguments before the justices on behalf of the Biden administration.
With a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has recently scrapped the super-precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion, supporters of LGBTQ rights may think the outcome of the case is all but lost, especially amid widespread fears same-sex marriage would be next on the chopping block. After the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 303 Creative in the lawsuit, the simple action by the Supreme Court to grant review in the lawsuit suggests they are primed to issue a reversal and rule in favor of the company.
Pizer, acknowledging the call to action issued by LGBTQ groups in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, conceded the current Supreme Court issuing the ruling in this case is “a terrifying prospect,” but cautioned the issue isn’t so much the makeup of the court but whether or not justices will continue down the path of abolishing case law.
“I think the question that we’re facing with respect to all of the cases or at least many of the cases that are in front of the court right now, is whether this court is going to continue on this radical sort of wrecking ball to the edifice of settled law and seemingly a goal of setting up whole new structures of what our basic legal principles are going to be. Are we going to have another term of that?” Pizer said. “And if so, that’s terrifying.”
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign
Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.
Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.
“I’m honored and ready to lead HRC — and our more than three million member-advocates — as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,” Robinson said. “This is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”
The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.
“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions — and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.”
The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.
Fourth GOP presidential debate sees return of transphobia, anti-LGBTQ animus
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to leave Congress
More queer books we love
Our favorite books for holiday gifts
EXCLUSIVE: Behind the scenes with LGBTQ staff working on Biden’s re-election campaign
PHOTOS: GMCW Holiday Show
Annise Parker: ‘Protecting democracy is fundamentally an LGBTQ+ rights issue’
Queen Latifah among Kennedy Center honorees welcomed to White House
Hearing postponed for gay D.C. gym owner charged with distributing child porn
Top tax benefits of homeownership
Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast
Photos3 days ago
PHOTOS: GMCW Holiday Show
LGBTQ Non-Profit Organizations4 days ago
Annise Parker: ‘Protecting democracy is fundamentally an LGBTQ+ rights issue’
The White House2 days ago
Queen Latifah among Kennedy Center honorees welcomed to White House
District of Columbia2 days ago
Hearing postponed for gay D.C. gym owner charged with distributing child porn