Connect with us

homepage news

Buttigieg leaves mark as gay candidate, secures future in politics

By campaign’s end, few people unaware of presidential hopeful

Published

on

Pete Buttigieg, gay news, Washington Blade
Pete Buttigieg (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Pete Buttigieg threw in the towel this week after a hard-fought presidential campaign, but observers agree he made a mark on American politics — and not just because he broke barriers as a gay presidential candidate.

Before Buttigieg launched his campaign more than a year ago, few people knew about the gay South Bend mayor with presidential aspirations. But by the time he suspended his campaign, few people were unaware. Those who follow him closely recognize despite his exit, Buttigieg has a bright political future.

Annise Parker, CEO of the LGBTQ Victory Fund, said Buttigieg excelled at taking advantage of being a gay presidential candidate, mobilizing LGBTQ voters and the LGBTQ donor base, but at the same time was “not allowing that to define his campaign.”

“He was not the gay candidate,” Parker said. “He took advantage, but didn’t allow it to swamp the overall message of his campaign.”

Buttigieg isn’t the first openly gay presidential candidate. That distinction belongs to Fred Karger, who campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, although he never was allowed on the debate stage or achieved traction in the polls.

But Buttigieg did achieve other firsts as a gay candidate, such as being the first openly gay person in a debate for presidential candidates of a major party. Demonstrating on stage he was politically astute, Buttigieg was clear, inspirational and, if needed, ferocious. His questioning of Elizabeth Warren on how she intended to pay for her proposed initiatives contributed to the once ascendant candidate’s downfall in the polls.

The bigger prize for Buttigieg was his success in the early primary states in Iowa and New Hampshire. Although a fiasco in vote counting marred his victory in Iowa, Buttigieg walked away with the most delegates in the state, making him the first openly gay person to win a state contest in a presidential primary campaign. In New Hampshire, Buttigieg won a close second place to Bernie Sanders.

Tearful over those early victories in Iowa and New Hampshire were many gay men who thought they would never see the day when a gay presidential candidate would do so well.

Among those who witnessed Buttigieg’s wins firsthand and recognized their impact was New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley, who’s gay and said Buttigieg’s candidacy “opened the closet door for millions worldwide.”

“Pete serves as a role model for all young people wanting to be accepted and loved,” Buckley said. “The very act of kissing his husband when he announced radically changed America in that instant. It is not just that Pete is gay that made his candidacy remarkable but for a 37-year-old, small-town mayor from Indiana to rise overnight to become a national contender for the presidency is breathtaking. Winning Iowa, coming in a close second are achievements that have escaped many seasoned candidates for decades.”

Being a gay presidential candidate had little precedent and Buttigieg faced criticism at times for being too gay and not gay enough, but many of Buttigieg’s supporters were excited about the prospect of electing a gay person to the White House.

In Iowa, for example, as Buttigieg cross-crossed the state, his audiences were the ones who brought up LGBTQ issues and being gay in a positive way. He didn’t have to pander for their votes as a gay candidate. That enthusiasm materialized with success on the day of the Iowa caucuses.

At the end of the day, however, Buttigieg won’t be the Democratic presidential nominee, nor did he achieve his ultimate goal of winning election to the White House as the first openly gay president.

Parker, however, said that misses the point. Buttigieg, she said, was basically unknown, a “new entry” at the Democratic primary and “didn’t have enough runway” to connect with voters to gain the support that would have been necessary.

Calling his entrance into the primary a “standing start,” Parker said Buttigieg was nonetheless able to enjoy early success in Iowa and New Hampshire because he had one-on-one conversations in the state, which she said voters there value, and demonstrated he’s a “genuine, nice thoughtful guy.”

One could say the timing of Buttigieg’s exit was an act of self-interest. Polls consistently showed Buttigieg struggled with the black electorate, which was evidenced in the South Carolina primary when Buttigieg walked away with a single-digit performance. A similar drubbing on Super Tuesday would have cemented that image of black and minority voters not liking him, tainting his future political endeavors. By bowing out before the results, Buttigieg avoided that permanent perception.

Buttigieg’s record as South Bend mayor was cited as a source of concern for black voters, including his handling of a shooting of a black man by a white police officer, his termination of a black police chief who was investigating racism on the police force and a housing initiative that eliminated low-income homes, many in black neighborhoods.

At the same time, there were indications — including focus group results from Buttigieg’s campaign — that black voters had trouble accepting a gay candidate for president.

Parker, however, bristled at the notion black voters wouldn’t support Buttigieg calling that “absolute and utter B.S.,” insisting black voters at the end of the day would support whomever is the Democratic nominee.

“You have to have hard conversations sometimes,” Parker said, demonstrate an awareness and concern for issues black voters care about, but if that happens, black voters will lend support to an LGBTQ candidate.

As evidence, Parker pointed to the election of Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and her own success winning election as mayor of Houston, asserting an LGBTQ candidate is “the best candidate” for the black community.

Looking at it another way, Buttigieg’s decision to exit at that time could be seen as a bold decision for the Democratic Party that will play well in posterity.

By throwing in the towel, Buttigieg minimized the split of the moderate vote in the Democratic primary, clearing the way for former Vice President Joseph Biden’s tremendous wins on Super Tuesday. Buttigieg essentially sacrificed himself for a candidate who’s closer in ideology to Buttigieg than either Sanders or Warren.

Buttigieg’s exit, followed the next day by Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-Minn.) decision to suspend her campaign, was the catalyst for an avalanche of new support for Biden. With the two candidates no longer a factor in the primary, big name endorsements immediately rolled in for the former vice president.

Among the new endorsements, along with Buttigieg himself, were Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who switched allegiance from Buttigieg to the vice president, Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) of the Congressional Black Caucus, former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and TV personality Alyssa Milano. LGBTQ endorsements included former Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin and Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the case that led the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide.

The Biden campaign counted 125 new endorsements after Buttigieg exited the race on Sunday, bringing the total endorsements to more than 1,500. If Biden continues to remain strong in the Democratic primary after Super Tuesday, or even go on to win the Democratic nomination, Buttigieg could get credit for helping that to happen.

Spencer Kimball, a professor in political and sports communication at Emerson College, said candidates dropping out and subsequently endorsing Biden “had varying effect around the country” on Super Tuesday.

In the case of Buttigieg, Kimball said the candidate’s exit gave Biden eight to 10 points in Massachusetts and 10 to 12 points in Maine, allowing him to claim victory in both states. Kimball also pointed to success for Biden in the aftermath of Klobuchar and O’Rourke dropping out.

“California looks to be where the trifecta of endorsements stopped Sanders’s momentum of nearing 40 percent of the vote and gave Biden a three to four point bounce,” Kimball said. “The impact was much less in the western part of the country. Sanders still performed well in California and held his numbers in Utah and Colorado.”

In the aftermath of the earth-shattering campaign and graceful exit, Buttigieg’s personal political future is bright. Already speculation has emerged he could pursue statewide office, but may seek chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, which he sought in 2017, as his next step.

Buttigieg left the door open for a future move in politics in his speech suspending his campaign in South Bend. Supporters could be heard chanting, “2024! 2024!”.

Parker said Buttigieg has an “unlimited political future” and she expects him to run for president again, although between now and that run “has the opportunity to do other things.”

“I would love to see him considering working in a position in a Democratic administration, or even better, I would prefer to see him on a statewide ballot in Indiana,” Parker said.

But Parker denied Buttigieg has given her any indication to her he’d pursue such an office, saying his presidential campaign wasn’t a means to achieve something else.

“It may have been at the beginning, but it certainly hasn’t been for months now, ‘I’m running for president to raise my profile,’” Parker said. “It’s been, ‘I’m running for president of the United States to unite our country.”

Also saying Buttigieg’s political future is limitless was Buckley, basing that assessment not just on Buttigieg’s presentation, but his ability to manage a campaign behind the scenes.

“Pete should be applauded for his ability to create a compelling message, raise the money, hire the staff and inspire the voters so successfully,” Buckley said. “Pete’s future is limitless, he will have the support to win for many years to come.”

Parker said Buttigieg has a unique knack for connecting wide swaths of the American public, which she said will serve him well in his next endeavors.

“He showed a remarkable ability to connect urban and rural voters, to connect voters across different racial and ethnic backgrounds,” Parker concluded. “He was, over and over again, the one candidate who was speaking to all of America, rather than speaking to Democrats.”

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

homepage news

Honoring the legacy of New Orleans’ 1973 UpStairs Lounge fire

Why the arson attack that killed 32 gay men still resonates 50 years later

Published

on

Fifty years ago this week, 32 gay men were killed in an arson attack on the UpStairs Lounge in New Orleans. (Photo by G.E. Arnold/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

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.

(Photo by G.E. Arnold/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

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.” 

(Photo by H.J. Patterson/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

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.” 

(Photo by Philip Ames/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

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.”

Continue Reading

homepage news

New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences

Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court is to set consider the case of 303 Creative, which seeks to refuse design services for same-sex weddings. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

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.”

Continue Reading

homepage news

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign

Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Published

on

Kelley Robinson (Screen capture via HRC YouTube)

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.”

Kelley Robinson IS NAMED as The next human rights Campaign president

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.

Kelley Robinson, Planned Parenthood, Cathy Chu, SMYAL, Supporting and Mentoring Youth Advocates and Leaders, Amy Nelson, Whitman-Walker Health, Sheroes of the Movement, Mayor's office of GLBT Affairs, gay news, Washington Blade
Kelley Robinson, seen here with Cathy Chu of SMYAL and Amy Nelson of Whitman-Walker Health, is the next Human Rights Campaign president. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular