homepage news
Sanders clashes with gay rights leaders ahead of Calif. primary
Campaign comes to blows with Frank, Staley
Ahead of primary contests on Tuesday where the results in California could determine the tone heading into the Democratic National Convention, Sen. Bernie Sanders is facing scrutiny for recent clashesĀ with gay rights leaders.
It remains to be seen whether disputesĀ with former Rep. Barney Frank and Peter Staley, a longtime New York-based gay rights and HIV/AIDS activist, will have an impact in California or other states, but they’re attracting unfavorable attention for Sanders from the LGBT community at a time when he’s trying to make theĀ case for his long-shot bid for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary Clinton.
Over the weekend, the Sanders campaign called for Frank’s removal as head of the 2016 Democratic Party platform committee as well as former Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy as committee chair, citing “political and personal hostility.”
āGov. Malloy and Mr. Frank have both been aggressive attack surrogates for the Clinton campaign,ā Sanders campaign counsel Brad Deutsch wrote in a letter to the partyās Rules & Bylaws Committee. āTheir criticisms of Sen. Sanders have gone beyond dispassionate ideological disagreement and have exposed a deeper professional, political and personal hostility toward the senator and his campaign.”
Frank was particularly outspoken against Sanders in a March interview with Slate magazine, saying Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years “with little to show for it” and has been “McCarthyite” in urging Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street.
“I saw one commercial that said the big companies werenāt punished,” Frank reportedly said. “Why? Well, maybe itās because Hillary is getting speaking fees. So the secretary of state should have been indicting people? I mean, yes, McCarthyite in the sense that itās guilt by association. He complains about what she did with regards to all this money stuff. Whereās the beef of that?”
In the end, the Democratic National Committee responded in a joint letter from Rules & Bylaws Committee co-chairs Jim Roosevelt and Lorraine Miller, who determined Frank and Malloy would remain in place.
Roosevelt and Miller said they’re “compelled to dismiss” the complaint because the Sanders campaign “does not allege that there was any violation” of the rules established by the Democratic National Committee.
In effect, Sanders sought to remove Frank from the platform committee without proposing an LGBT replacement for him. His removal would leave as the sole openly LGBT voice on the committee Bonnie Schaefer, a lesbian Democratic activist from Florida who’s donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, party organizations and super PACs. Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz picked her as one of the 15 members of the platform drafting committee.
In an appearance on MSNBC, Frank said Sanders tried to oust him out of spite because the candidate hasn’t received enough votes to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
“Sen. Sanders is disappointed that he hasn’t won,” Frank said. “He is losing. He is losing not because anything was rigged or because of any trickery, he’s losing because Hillary Clinton has gotten more votes.”
Frank also chided Sanders for his deficit in votes among black Democrats, who have voted for Clinton overwhelmingly in the primary.
“One of the things that Sen. Sanders, I guess, didn’t pay attention to, is that black votes matter,” Frank said. “There’s been a very large African-American vote for Hillary Clinton as well as from others. As a result, she has more votes.”
Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesperson, insisted Sanders’ attempt to oust Frank has nothing to do with his sexual orientation.
“Bernie Sanders’ differences with Barney Frank are all about policy issues and the role he has played as an aggressive attack surrogate for Secretary Clinton,” Briggs said.
Hilary Rosen, a D.C.-based Democratic activist and Clinton supporter, said she doesn’t think Sanders’ effort to oust Frank has anything to do with sexual orientation.
“I don’t think it was a homophobic attack,” Rosen said. “But tensions are high and Sanders is wrong to criticize Barney’s integrity or ability to be a fair leader.”
Conflict with Staley over Calif. ballot initiative
Meanwhile, the Sanders campaign has come to blows with Staley in the aftermath of a meeting between Sanders and HIV/AIDS activists in which Staley took part.
Although the initial report from HIV/AIDS activists about the meeting was harmonious with Sanders as they declared Sanders committed to making sure access to generic drugs was in the Democratic Party platform, that quickly dissipated after Staley posted on his Facebook page he felt “used and abused” by Sanders as result of the meeting.
At issue for Staley, a Clinton supporter, was the California Drug Price Relief Act, a proposed ballot measure that would ostensibly lower HIV/AIDS drug costs in the state. Sanders issued a statement highlighting his support for the measure in the aftermath of the meeting, but Staley said that was inappropriate because it wasn’t a major topic of discussion at the meeting and activists disagree on it.
After Staley posted his initial remarks on Facebook, he made an additional post quoting what he said was an email from Sanders policy director Warren Grunnels, who allegedly accused Staley of attacking Sanders and of being on the take of Gilead, which produces the HIV medication Truvada.
Further, Staley posted a now deleted tweet from Grunnels in which the campaign staffer apparently used scare-quotes to refer to Staley as an “activist,” accusing him of making a fortune from big drug companies and saying Sanders is running a “campaign of hate.”
Staley later deleted the post after recognizing he did use the phrase “campaign of hate” in an op-ed for the Boston Globe on Sanders. Staley admitted that he sold his website in 2006 to POZ.com, but said since then he’s self-financed and denied he received a fortune from pharmaceutical companies.
Seattle gay rights activist Dan Savage was among those attackingĀ Sanders for the Staley criticism, saying on Twitter, “Millions of gay men alive and able to vote today thanks to @PeterStaley. Attack on Peter from Sanders camp appalling.”
Asked by the Blade whether the Sanders campaign regrets its actions toward Staley, Sanders spokesperson Briggs replied, “He obviously is a Clinton partisan.”
The Hillary Clinton campaign didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request forĀ comment on the conflictĀ between Sanders and gay rights leaders.
Will conflict impact California primary?
The incidents comeĀ just days before the primary in California on June 7. Other states holding primaries on that day are New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota and New Jersey, but California is the jewel in the crown because the state awards 475 delegates.
It remains to be seen whether these incidents will have an impact on the primary. Sanders also faced another incident casting him in a bad light in the LGBT community when a video circulated on the internet of him entering a rally in California to a violent, homophobic rap, but it was discovered to be a fake after the Sanders campaign produced a video of the actual rally and a Sanders supporter admitted he doctored it.
Michael Petrelis, a gay San Francisco-based blogger and Sanders supporter, said as an HIV-positive voter he’s “disappointed” that a Sanders campaign staffer “wildly mischaracterized” Staley, but intends to vote for Sanders on June 7.
“Let’s bear in mind that Hillary Clinton didn’t oppose Bill Clinton signing into law horrific HIV criminalization laws when he was governor of Arkansas and that dozens of that state’s HIV population, many disproportionately black, were and are incarcerated because of those laws,” Petrelis said. “The Clintons sure like locking up folks!”
Polls in California generally show Clinton in the lead. A Hoover/Golden State poll gave Clinton a 13 points advantage over Sanders in the state with a 51-38 margin. But a PPIC poll had Clinton in the lead by only 2 points, suggesting the outcome might be tighter.
Last week, Clinton changedĀ her campaign schedule apparently to stave off a Sanders upset in California, canceling an event in New Jersey to instead return to the Golden State for a five-day swing.
At the national level, Clinton enjoys a commanding lead in the Democratic primary of 2,312 delegates compared to the 1,545 claimed by Sanders, which includes uncommitted superdelegates. Sanders has said he’s basing his campaign on convincing superdelegates to vote for him at the Democratic National Convention if he won their state’s primary contest.
Daniel Pinello, a political scientist at the City University of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the results in California will only make a difference if Sanders wins in an unlikely blowout.
“The only chance Sanders has for the Democratic nomination is a landslide California victory, prompting superdelegates to jump off Clinton’s ship en masse ā an event which I think is very improbable, but not impossible,” Pinello said. “If national polls persist showing Sanders outperforming Clinton over Trump in November, party elders may ponder whether her high personal negatives create too much of a risk for down-ballot Democratic candidates across the nation ā in the same way Republicans are worried about Trump’s negative coattails.”
The LGBT vote in California may be significant. Gary Gates, a former scholar at the Williams Institute of the University of California, Los Angeles, said there are about 446,000 LGBT Democrats in California, which make up 6 percent of the state’s Democratic electorate. (Comparatively, there are an estimated 84,000 LGBT Republicans in California, making up 1.8 percent of the state’s Republican electorate, but Donald Trump has already secured the nomination on the Republican side.)
Pinello nonetheless said he doesn’t think the LGBT vote will be decisive in the California primary.
“With regard to the LGBT vote in California, my hunch is that it will be split between Clinton and Sanders in a way that won’t affect the outcome significantly,” Pinello said. “Clinton has the shield of the Human Rights Campaign endorsement to offset serious questions surrounding her vigilance as chief executive to promote and protect LGBT rights.”
homepage news
Honoring the legacy of New Orleansā 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 Orleansā 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, āUnited We Standā by the Brotherhood of Man.
āUnited we stand,ā the men would sing together, ādivided we fallā ā the words epitomizing the ethos of their beloved UpStairs Lounge bar, an egalitarian free space that served as a forerunner to todayās 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 ā 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: āSome thieves hung out there, and you know this was a queer bar.ā
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 āhelp our bereaved brothers and sistersā ā and shatter officialdomās code of silence.
Perry broke local taboos by holding a press conference as an openly gay man. āItās high time that you people, in New Orleans, Louisiana, got the message and joined the rest of the Union,ā 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.
āThis fire had very little to do with the gay movement or with anything gay,ā Esteve told a reporter from The Philadelphia Inquirer. āI do not want my bar or this tragedy to be used to further any of their causes.ā
Conspicuously, no photos of Esteve appeared in coverage of the UpStairs Lounge fire or its aftermath ā and the bar owner also remained silent as he witnessed police looting the ashes of his business.
āPhil said the cash register, juke box, cigarette machine and some wallets had money removed,ā recounted Esteveās friend Bob McAnear, a former U.S. Customs officer. āPhil wouldnāt report it because, if he did, police would never allow him to operate a bar in New Orleans again.ā
The next day, gay bar owners, incensed at declining gay bar traffic amid an atmosphere of anxiety, confronted Perry at a clandestine meeting. āHow dare you hold your damn news conferences!ā 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. āReverend Troy Perry awoke several sleeping giants, me being one of them,ā recalled Charlene Schneider, a lesbian activist who walked out of that front door with Perry.
Esteve doubted the UpStairs Lounge storyās 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 ā some with visible burn scars ā gathered but were discouraged from singing āUnited We Stand.ā
New Orleans cops neglected to question the chief arson suspect and closed the investigation without answers in late August 1973. Gay elites in the cityās 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, āWhere are the gay activists in New Orleans?,ā Esteve responded that there were none, because none were needed. āWe donāt feel weāre discriminated against,ā Esteve said. āNew Orleans gays are different from gays anywhere elseā¦ Perhaps there is some correlation between the amount of gay activism in other cities and the degree of police harassment.ā
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 ā with the exception of a few sanctuaries for gay political debate such as the local lesbian bar Charleneās, 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: āA tragedy that, as far as I know, no good came of.ā
Finally, in 1991, at Stewart Butler and Charlene Schneiderās 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 ā more than 18 years after the fire.
āI believe the fire was the catalyst for the anger to bring us all to the table,ā Schneider told The Times-Picayune, a tacit rebuke to Esteveās 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. Whatās left is an enduring story that refused to go gently. The story now echoes around the world ā 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 pastās 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 ā and how, 50 years onward, it became known internationally ā 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 ā in the spirit of voices who once gathered āround a white baby grand piano and sang, joyfully and loudly, āUnited We Stand.ā
Robert W. Fieseler is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of āTinderbox: the Untold Story of the Up Stairs Lounge Fire and the Rise of Gay Liberation.ā
homepage news
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 ā 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 ā whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit ā 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. Coloradoās own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actorās 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 Smithās 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.”
homepage news
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.
āIām honored and ready to lead HRC ā and our more than three million member-advocates ā as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,ā Robinson said. āThis 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 ā and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.ā
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.