Connect with us

homepage news

Biden falls short of 100-day goal to sign Equality Act into law

Biden made legislation cornerstone of promise to LGBTQ people

Published

on

Biden administration, gay news, Washington Blade

With President Biden’s first 100 days in office coming to a close, the Equality Act doesn’t appear even close to passage after his campaign promise to sign the legislation into law within that timeframe, although defenders say talks are ongoing and point to his executive actions in favor of LGBTQ rights.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first out lesbian elected to the U.S. Senate and a co-sponsor of the Equality Act, told the Washington Blade on Monday the Equality Act wasn’t completely dead in the water, alluding to imminent talks with fellow senators on the comprehensive LGBTQ legislation.

“Conversations continue to try to get to 60 votes,” Baldwin said. “I am hoping to personally be involved in several of those before the recess next week, but they’re still tentative.”

Asked what the reception has been to lawmakers amid talks on the Equality Act, Baldwin referenced items of traction, but wouldn’t get into details.

“I think there’s a commitment among a bipartisan group of getting to ‘yes,’” Baldwin said. “It’s just the, you know, law-making is like sausage-making.”

When the Blade pointed out Biden had said he’d sign the legislation into law within his first 100 days and asked whether the White House was being helpful, Baldwin said she had no reason to think otherwise.

“I’ve been dealing directly with my Senate colleagues, but I have no reason to believe they’re not being helpful,” Baldwin said.

Senators considered on the fence about the Equality Act wanted nothing to do with inquiries about where things stand with them on the legislation when the Blade approached them.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who remains the lone Democrat in the Senate uncommitted on the Equality Act amid efforts of trying to pry him out by winning over the junior Republican senator from his state, professed to be unaware of the legislation when asked by the Blade if anyone has reached out to him.

Manchin, who previously signaled he couldn’t support the Equality Act because of concerns over public schools having to implement the transgender protection, told the Blade he “hasn’t seen” the bill.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who declined to co-sponsor the legislation this Congress after having previously supported it, pushed back when the Blade made similar inquiries about whether she’s involved in talks on the bill.

“I’ve talked to several people about it; I’m not going to give you a list of names,” said Collins just before a nearby aide closed down further inquiries, citing concerns about the Maine senator missing an imminent floor vote.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year in Bostock v. Clayton County determined anti-LGBTQ discrimination is illegal under existing law in the workplace, which has application to any law banning discrimination, the Equality Act would take things further to prohibit anti-LGBTQ discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs.

Additionally, it would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit using the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense in cases of discrimination, including protections on the basis of sex in public accommodations and federal programs and expand the definition of public accommodations to include retail stores, banks, transportation services and health care services for all protected categories, including race and national origin.

Biden, whose 100th day in office as president was set for Thursday, promised the LGBTQ community in multiple forums on the campaign trail in 2020 he’d sign the Equality Act within his first 100 days in office and included his commitment to that timeframe on the LGBTQ page of his campaign website.

Even in October 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic continued to rage in the United States and it was clear that would be a priority for him upon taking office, Biden said in an interview with the Philadelphia Gay News the Equality Act would be a top priority for him within his first 100 days.

“I will make enactment of the Equality Act a top legislative priority during my first 100 days — a priority that Donald Trump opposes,” Biden said.

But the Equality Act faces significant hurdles in the path toward passage in a Senate equally divided 50-50 along party lines where 60 votes would be needed to end a filibuster. Anti-transgender groups have pounced on the issue of transgender kids in sports, which has been the focus of legislation advancing through state legislatures and may be a sticking point in talks on the bill. Although the U.S. House passed the Equality Act largely along party lines in March, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn’t yet voted to advance the legislation, let alone hold a floor vote on the bill.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) signaled through a spokesperson work continues behind the scenes on the Equality Act and important achievements have been made, including record business support announced this week.

“The Equality Act has made historic progress within the first 100 days of the Biden administration,” said Martina McLennan, a Merkley spokesperson. “In addition to passing the House with a bipartisan vote, this legislation has more Senate cosponsors than ever before, more than 400 major businesses have called for its passage, and, after the Judiciary Committee’s first-ever Senate hearing in March, the Equality Act is poised for further action soon. Sen. Merkley is continuing to have productive conversations with Senate Republicans and remains committed to achieving a bipartisan vote in the Senate and seeing this landmark legislation signed into law.”

The White House continues to insist nothing has changed in terms of Biden making the Equality Act a priority. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki in February twice told the Washington Blade Biden “stands by” his 100-day commitment, once in February and again on the 83rd day of the administration, blaming the Senate for inaction.

“And as you know, in order to sign legislation, it needs to come to his desk,” Psaki said. “And while he has certainly been a vocal advocate in his support for the Equality Act, obviously, as you know and noted, it passed the House; it needs to work its way through the Senate. It requires the Senate passing it in order for him to sign it.”

Asked what Biden is doing to advance the Equality Act, Psaki cited a Statement of Administration Policy in favor of the legislation and vaguely mentioned talks Biden is having.

“He has talked about his view that this is legislation that should pass,” Psaki said. “And he has a range of conversations about a range of topics, but also so does our legislative team who work to move forward his agenda every single day.”

However, exactly what the White House and Biden are doing, if anything, behind the scenes to advance the Equality Act remains unclear. One Democratic insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity for greater candor, said he’s “disappointed that they haven’t allocated much energy to it compared to other items on the agenda,” later adding “hopefully they’ll plug along.”

A White House official, asked by the Blade for this article if Biden is disappointed he won’t be able to sign the Equality Act within the 100-day timeframe he envisioned, reiterated the president’s support for the legislation.

“President Biden believes the Senate needs to act now to pass the Equality Act, and will continue to prioritize this legislation so that no one can be discriminated against on the basis of sex, including gender identity and sexual orientation,” the White House official said.

To be sure, Biden has acted to advance LGBTQ rights through executive action during his first 100 days in office, signing an executive order on his first day in office ordering federal agencies to fully implement the Bostock ruling across the board with regard to all laws against sex discrimination.

Biden wasn’t done: Days later he signed an executive order reversing former President Trump’s transgender military ban and a memorandum directing the State Department to make LGBTQ human rights an international foreign policy priority.

Based on Biden’s Bostock order, federal agencies have signaled that they would take up cases of anti-LGBTQ discrimination as sex discrimination, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Housing & Urban Development. The Department of Education also issued a memo signaling anti-LGBTQ discrimination in school programs, including sports, is illegal under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

But the cornerstone of Biden’s campaign promise to the LGBTQ community was signing the Equality Act to enact a change in law for LGBTQ protections. Although Biden signaled he’d enforce the law consistent with the Bostock decision, signing the Equality Act into law within 100 days was what he repeatedly promised in campaign forums.

Moreover, executive actions have limits. For starters, a subsequent administration hostile to LGBTQ rights could reverse them (even though those changes would likely be challenged in court). Most notably, because no law bars sex discrimination in public accommodations, a change in law is necessary to prohibit to anti-LGBTQ discrimination in that area. Under current federal law, businesses can refuse service to customers for being LGBTQ or throw them out for holding hands with a same-sex partner without fear of legal reprisal.

Harkening back to the 2020 presidential campaign, the inability of Biden to meet his campaign promise to sign the Equality Act into law within 100 days makes prophetic concerns some Biden campaign supporters quietly expressed about the campaign or transition team not having a dedicated policy staffer on LGBTQ issues, which could have gotten the ball rolling to anticipate controversial issues with the legislation and coordinate among principals.

LGBTQ advocacy groups working to advance the Equality Act have largely kept quiet on the strategy talks behind the scenes, although they expressed solidarity with Biden despite him not being able to meet his 100-day timeframe for the legislation.

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said via email she remains confident Biden will sign the Equality Act into law based on his actions in his first 100 days.

“NCTE had prioritized passing the Equality Act in this Congress,” Keisling said. “We are confident that President Biden will sign the bill when we can get it through the Senate whether that’s on Day 100 or Day 1,000. President Biden has been off to a quick start on trans policy with his early Bostock Executive Order, ending the trans military ban, and so far appointing the first two trans people in history to Senate confirmable positions. We are confident of more great work during these four years.”

Alphonso David. president of the Human Rights Campaign, listed the executive actions Biden has taken on behalf of the LGBTQ community since he took office when asked whether the impasse on the Equality Act is a disappointment.

“We are incredibly proud of the work the Biden Administration has done to protect and advance the rights of LGBTQ people here in the United States and across the world during his first 100 days in office. From issuing an executive order to implementing the Bostock decision across federal laws to reversing the ban on transgender service members, to an historic commitment to diversity in hiring — including appointing the first openly LGBTQ Cabinet member — the Biden Administration has made it clear that they celebrate and will fight for LGBTQ people at every level.”

David added much of the executive actions Biden has implemented were included in the organization’s Blueprint for Positive Change, which the LGBTQ group gave Biden officials during the transition period.

“Many of these recommendations have been met, and there have been significant actions taken on many more,” David added. “We are pleased with the progress that has been made in such a short amount of time, and we look forward to continuing our work with President Biden and his administration — as well as members of Congress who want to join millions of Americans in the fight for equality for all — to advance LGBTQ rights, particularly as the rights of LGBTQ people remain under attack in several states.”

CORRECTION: An initial version of the article stated the Human Rights Campaign didn’t respond by the Blade deadline. The Blade regrets the error.

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