Connect with us

News

Swiss voters narrowly reject anti-marriage proposal

Tax equity initiative failed by a 51-49 percent margin

Published

on

Switzerland, gay news, Washington Blade, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality

Switzerland, gay news, Washington Blade, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality

LGBT rights advocates rally in support of marriage rights for same-sex couples in 2014 in Bern, Switzerland. Swiss voters on Feb. 28, 2016, narrowly rejected a proposal that would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman in the country’s constitution. (Photo courtesy of Maria von Känel/Swiss Rainbow Families Association)

Swiss voters on Sunday narrowly rejected a proposal that would have prevented same-sex couples from receiving marriage rights.

Election officials indicate the initiative failed by a 51-49 percent margin.

The Christian Democratic People’s Party of Switzerland proposed the initiative — titled “For the Couple and the Family — No to the Marriage Penalty” — in 2012 as a way to address tax “inequality” among married couples. The initiative also sought to amend the Swiss Federal Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

“Marriage is the sustainable and regulated union between a man and a woman,” reads the proposed amendment, according to ILGA-Europe. “From a fiscal point of view, marriage constitutes an economic community. It cannot be discriminated against other ways of living, in particular in terms of tax and social insurance.”

“This initiative was anti-LGBTI sentiment masquerading as tax reform,” said Joyce Hamilton, co-chair of ILGA-Europe’s Executive Board, in a statement on Sunday. “The Swiss public saw through the proposal and said they didn’t want to be part of it.”

Swiss LGBT rights advocates also welcomed the vote’s outcome.

Pink Cross posted a picture to its Twitter page with the caption “Yes! A no!”

The Bern-based advocacy group was among the coalition of more than LGBT organizations that urged Swiss voters to oppose the initiative.

“We are very happy that we won this vote,” Pink Cross Secretary General Bastian Baumann told the Washington Blade.

Maria von Känel of the Swiss Rainbow Families Association described Sunday’s vote as “a successful fight against a significant setback.”

“We succeeded in mobilizing a large section of the general public in preventing the enshrinement in the Swiss constitution of the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman,” she told the Blade.

Switzerland has legally recognized same-sex relationships under its Partnership Act since 2007.

The country’s highest court later ruled that gays and lesbians in long-term relationships were entitled to receive the same death benefits from their partner’s pensions that heterosexuals do.

Members of the Legal Affairs Committee of the National Council, which is the lower house of the Swiss Federal Assembly, in February 2015 overwhelmingly recommended that the country extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. The Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of States, which is the upper house of the Swiss Federal Assembly, last September approved the proposal by a 7-5 vote margin.

The Swiss Federal Assembly later this year is expected to debate the issue.

Von Känel told the Blade on Sunday that 70 percent of Swiss people support marriage rights for same-sex couples.

“The result of the vote strengthens our resolve to continue our struggle for marriage equality, a parliamentary initiative on which topic is currently being discussed,” she said, referring to Sunday’s vote.

Baumann made a similar point.

“So now we approaching more conservative MP’s and try to convince them for marriage equality,” he told the Blade. “In other hand we try to show the diversity of love and couples in Switzerland with our campaign.”

The Council of States on March 8 is scheduled to vote on a bill that would extend second-parent adoption rights to LGBT couples.

“We are hopeful and cautiously optimistic that the bill will pass,” von Känel told the Blade.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Maryland

Baltimore Heritage wants Md. LGBTQ historical sites added to National Registry

Mary Elizabeth Garrett’s Mount Vernon home among historical sites

Published

on

A Baltimore Pride 2025 float. Baltimore Heritage is working to add the state's LGBTQ historical sites to the National Register of Historic Places. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Baltimore Heritage is continuing its mission to preserve Maryland’s LGBTQ history.

The group, using documentation, is attempting to get statewide LGBTQ historical sites listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. Kentucky was the first state to make this effort, using a similar study to Maryland, which outlined a comprehensive list of LGBTQ heritage sites. 

Baltimore Heritage, a local non-profit, 15 years ago began its efforts to promote LGBTQ heritage within the local community, mainly with walking tours to sites important to LGBTQ history. Preservation Maryland in 2018 received a grant, and Susan Ferentinos spent two years compiling a comprehensive list of LGBTQ historical sites, later published in 2022. 

Suffragist Mary Elizabeth Garrett’s Mount Vernon home is one of the examples of the LGBTQ historical sites. 

Although Garrett never labeled herself, she was involved in same-sex relationships, was a leader in the feminist movement, and played a large role in advancing education for women. 

Although the effort has been ongoing, Baltimore Heritage Executive Director Johns Hopkins explained that Baltimore Heritage and its partners’ goal is to add Maryland to the public conversation on LGBTQ history. 

“Bringing a little bit of a spotlight to some of the sites that are important, locally and nationally, would be meeting a goal of trying to have a broader, more in-depth public discussion around LGBTQ history, so we all know where we’re coming from,” said Hopkins.

Continue Reading

State Department

Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records

April 20 memo outlined anti-transgender rule

Published

on

(Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

Democracy Forward on Tuesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records on the State Department’s new bathroom policy.

A memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms” that the State Department issued on April 20 notes employees can no longer use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal, a conservative news website that first reported on the memo. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”

President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”

Democracy Forward’s FOIA request that the Washington Blade exclusively obtained on Tuesday is specifically seeking a copy of the memo that details the State Department’s new bathroom policy. Democracy Forward has also requested “all” memo-specific communications between the State Department’s Bureau of Global Public Affairs and the Daily Signal from April 1-21.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill

Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.

Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.

The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is House Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.

The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.

It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”

LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission to use a child’s preferred gender identity, as it raises issues of at-home safety — especially if the home is not LGBTQ-affirming — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.

A follow-up bill, HB 2617, proposed by Owens, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, prevents the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition from President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168, making that an enshrined definition in law of sex rather than just by executive order. There is also a bill making its way through the senate with the same text— Senate Bill 2251.

Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.

David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.

“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”

This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.

The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.

Continue Reading

Popular