News
Senate insiders bullish on marriage vote as summer recess nears
More than 10 Republicans possible ‘yes’ votes
Senate insiders are bullish on the prospect of a measure seeking to codify same-sex marriage after an unexpected bipartisan vote for the measure in the U.S. House as some predict lawmakers could find the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster and vote to send it to President Biden’s desk, although concerns remain about limited time on the congressional calendar.
With support for same-sex marriage at a record high — 7-in-10 Americans support gay nuptials — insiders told the Washington Blade the Senate could approve the Respect for Marriage Act with the 10 Republicans needed to end a filibuster — or even more. The major obstacles for the measure are finding a time period to put the bill up for a vote in the Senate, waiting for senators out with COVID to return to work, and rounding up enough Republican support.
One LGBTQ lobbyist, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said “we’re in a good place” with votes on the measure, although whether or not 60 votes are present is hard to know until Senate Democratic leadership ultimately brings up the bill for a vote.
“I think this is one of those things where I think we are absolutely close, and I think we should move forward when we can, which I hoped would be really soon, ideally, to try to have a vote,” the lobbyist said.
Lawmakers approved the Respect for Marriage Act by a 267-157 vote, with 47 Republicans joining the unanimous Democratic caucus in supporting the legislation. One-fourth of the House Republican caucus voted for the measure, dubbed the Respect for Marriage Act. The measure would need a smaller share of Republicans in the Senate, one-fourth, to obtain the 60 votes necessary to end a filibuster in the chamber.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first out lesbian senator, was the subject of a recent profile in Politico and was quoted as saying she has spoken to at least 10 Republican senators. One LGBTQ lobbyist said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Wis.), the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, is active in the lobbying process through notes to her staff. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), an original co-sponsor of the measure, and Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who has a gay son and was an early Republican supporter of same-sex marriage, are taking an active role in lobbying the Republican caucus, insiders said.
In addition to Collins and Portman, a handful of Republicans have declared support for the Respect for Marriage Act, including Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C), who once voted for same-sex partner benefits; and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has supported LGBTQ rights measures in the past. A fifth and unlikely Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), has said he sees “no reason to oppose the measure.”
Other Republicans have been non-committal, such as Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who has a reputation as a moderate, but years ago was once a champion of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage nationwide, or announced they would oppose the measure, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who pointedly called the measure a “stupid waste of time” and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). One Republican, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), surprisingly told reporters he’s OK with same-sex marriage, but hasn’t indicated specifically which way he’ll come down on the bill.
Romney, despite his history of opposition to same-sex marriage, may be in play, one LGBTQ lobbyist said, given his new image as a moderate and getting breathing space from Utah lawmakers in the House who were among the 47 Republicans to vote for the Respect for Marriage Act. Other potential votes identified are Sens. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).
Complicating matters is that a number of senators are out sick. Murkowski and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) have been out after contracting COVID, while Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the longest-serving member of the Senate, has been out with a fractured hip he suffered from a fall at his house in McLean, Va. One Republican insider said there is an effort to schedule a vote in the Senate, but that was scrapped with the number of senators absent, although another LGBTQ insider pushed back on that and said a vote may still happen this week.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), following the bipartisan vote for the Respect for Marriage Act in the House, expressed interest on the Senate floor in bringing the measure up for a vote, although he hasn’t specified any time as lawmakers are preparing to exit for the August recess. A Schumer spokesperson said he didn’t have a timing update and referred the Blade to the senator’s public remarks on the measure.
Time, however, is running out. Not only is the calendar limited before Congress adjourns for August recess, but one LGBTQ lobbyist said time is not on the side of Respect for Marriage Act as social conservatives are beginning to mount aggressive campaigns against the measure.
Schumer, asked about the Respect for Marriage Act during a weekly reporter stakeout Tuesday, said “yes” in response to a question on whether the bill remains a priority before Congress adjourns for August recess.
“OK, the bottom line is that we care very much about the Equality Act, the Marriage Equality Act,” Schumer added. “We are trying, working real hard to get 10 Republican senators. Between that and the illnesses, we’re not there yet.”
Dangerous amendments also remain a possibility. Unlike the House, which proceeded with the Respect for Marriage Act under a closed rule, the same option isn’t available in the Senate, where proposed amendments are determined by agreement among caucus leaders. One LGBTQ lobbyist, however, downplayed the threat of amendments, saying there may be some that would be acceptable if they would win the vote of additional supporters while objectionable changes could be voted down with bipartisan support.
The measure is advancing through Congress amid fears same-sex marriage is under threat after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, when U.S. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas writing in a concurrence he’d like to revisit the the Obergefell decision along with the Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut cases. No other justices signed Thomas’s concurrence, nor is any state legislature or court case advancing a challenge to marriage rights for same-sex couples.
The Respect for Marriage Act wouldn’t keep same-sex marriage the law of the land if the Supreme Court were to strike down Obergefell per se, but rather repeal from the books the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Supreme Court struck down in 2013, and require states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. There would be constitutional issues if Congress required states to accommodate same-sex couples in their marriage laws, which have been under the jurisdiction of the states.
The marriage bill, which would codify existing law and make no additional changes, has momentum and is poised for a vote in the Senate, while the Equality Act, a measure that would expand long-sought after non-discrimination protections in federal law, remains pending in the chamber and is all but dead. No Republican support currently exists for the Equality Act, unlike the Respect for Marriage Act.
One LGBTQ lobbyist said anytime a LGBTQ rights measure like the Respect for Marriage Act gets a win, it can only have a positive impact on other measures, but was ultimately circumspect about expressing optimism for any prospects for a non-discrimination bill.
“As far as the clock on this Congress, we don’t have a lot of time left,” the lobbyist said. “While I think we were getting closer to 60 on something on non-discrimination protections, maybe not the full Equality Act, it’s hard to see the time working in our favor for this Congress, but I do think this vote in broad strokes helps us.”
Baltimore
Charles Bowers, former owner of Baltimore gay bar the Hippo, dies
Prominent activist died at his Mount Vernon home
By WESLEY CASE | Charles “Chuck” Bowers, former owner of the storied Baltimore gay club the Hippo and a prominent advocate for Maryland’s LGBTQ community, died Tuesday. He was 81.
Bowers turned the Mount Vernon club — located at the corner of North Charles and West Eager streets — into a judgment-free refuge for queer and straight locals looking to find and express their authentic selves on a packed dance floor.
“He truly tried to make the Hippo a place for everybody — a safe space,” said an emotional Rik Newton-Treadway, who befriended his “mentor” Bowers at the club in 1979.
Bowers, of Mount Vernon, died Tuesday evening in Baltimore of natural causes, said his niece, Cathy Bowers.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
District of Columbia
Being a female firefighter comes with unique risks, and rewards
Well-fitting gear can be a safety issue
Firefighters are known for running into danger to save lives, but they may face another danger after the fire is out. Studies on firefighter health point to rising concerns about cancer risk, mental health struggles, and exposure to toxic “forever chemicals” found in firefighting foam and protective gear.
Nearly 40 percent of firefighters report “clinically significant levels” of anxiety or depression and 10 percent report this level of posttraumatic stress disorder, according to a national survey of public safety workers published last year in the journal Psychological Services. Lawmakers from several states are also pushing for stronger federal protections and compensation for firefighters exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job.
Female firefighters can also face a higher risk of injury, heat-related illness, and even greater carcinogen exposure due to ill-fitting equipment that wasn’t designed for their bodies. Their risk of psychological and workplace stress is higher, as well, due in part to the isolation of being in a slim minority in fire departments across the country. Only 5 to 9 percent of firefighters are women.
To understand the risks and rewards of being a female firefighter, Youthcast Media Group interviewed Connie Reid, a firefighter with the DC Fire and EMS Department. Meredith McQuerry, an associate professor of textile science at Florida State University who studies how to improve firefighting gear and other personal protective equipment to better protect women in the fire service, also responded to student questions via email. Reid’s and McQuerry’s responses have been edited for clarity and length.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN YOUR CAREER, AND WHAT DREW YOU TO IT?
REID: I’ve been a firefighter for seven years. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to be a firefighter or police officer, but I do have uncles that were firefighters, so I leaned towards the firefighter side. So I’m happy I made that decision.
McQUEERY: During my PhD, a colleague and I realized we never saw any female firefighters come through our research center. We began looking in the literature and found very few studies focused on PPE for women in the fire service.
DOES FIREFIGHTING GEAR ACTUALLY FIT WOMEN, AND DOES IT MATTER?
REID: In D.C., if you have an issue, you just send an email, and we have people who will properly size us. I don’t think any female that I know has complained about gear not fitting.
McQUERRY: Wearing protective clothing designed for the opposite sex can lead to restricted mobility, greater opportunity for thermal and particulate exposure, and a lack of functionality that can mean life or death, such as accessing a tool in a pocket that is completely closed off due to anthropometric differences.
There is a culture in the fire service, and especially for women in a male-dominated field, that suppresses the likelihood of advocating for better-fitting gear. While not within our area of expertise, we have done our best to raise awareness for the need for properly fitting gear for women in the fire service and to champion their self-advocacy.
Female firefighters report the inability to throw a ladder, step onto the truck, or cinch their pants down adequately due to ill-fitting protective clothing and equipment. One example is the interference between the helmet and the self-contained breathing apparatus which prevents many female firefighters from looking upward to throw a ladder without first twisting their neck sideways to avoid the lid of the helmet knocking into the respirator bottle. This type of modification can lead to acute and long term injury.
ARE THESE PROBLEMS MOSTLY ABOUT COMFORT? WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF SAFETY RISKS OR DANGERS THAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN GEAR DOES NOT FIT PROPERLY?
McQUERRY: All firefighters need properly fitting PPE as the primary threats center around carcinogen exposure, musculoskeletal injuries, and heat-related illnesses. For example, you have to work harder to do the same task in ill-fitting, mobility restrictive gear, which leads to faster metabolic heat production and build-up in the suit, quickening the onset of fatigue and other HRI.
Our previous work led us to hypothesize that oversized gear for women allowed for more particulate ingress in the interface areas including the collar/hood, sleeve/glove, boot/pant, and coat/pant areas. A recently funded study is allowing us to quantify this by correlating the gear fit of women’s structural turnout gear with their cancer biomarkers collected via urinalysis pre- and post-live fire burns.
HOW DO FIREFIGHTERS TRAIN TO STAY SAFE DURING DANGEROUS SITUATIONS?
REID: So we have trainings all the time. Safety is the number one priority of the job. They make sure they let us know all the time. We have annual trainings. We have quarterly trainings. We have online training if you need refreshers.
We are both on a medical side and a fire side so as a D.C. firefighter, you come in, and they teach you. You bring a positive attitude and just determination, because some people really don’t understand it’s not just physical, it’s mental. You have to be mentally prepared.
WERE THERE ANY FINDINGS IN YOUR RESEARCH THAT SURPRISED YOU?
McQUEERY: Yes, we were surprised to find in our nationwide survey [of 2,000 people] a few years ago that 15 percent of U.S. structural and 21 percent of wildland female firefighters sometimes or always leave off an essential item of their PPE due to limited mobility. Specifically, the turnout coat and pants or wildland shirt and pants were the most noted for being intentionally not worn, which is very surprising and concerning.
HAVE FIRE DEPARTMENTS OR EQUIPMENT COMPANIES STARTED MAKING IMPROVEMENTS SINCE YOUR STUDY, AND IF SO, WHY DO YOU THINK FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT HAS TAKEN SO LONG TO ADAPT TO WOMEN FIREFIGHTERS?
McQUEERY: It wasn’t until the post-Me Too movement that our research in this area was able to gain traction and support. It is a decades (or centuries) old problem of there not being enough “market share” for the 5-11 percent of the fire service. However, we have seen tremendous growth and innovation in this area since we began our funded research in 2019. Now, nearly every single structural firefighting manufacturer offers women’s protective clothing.
When we began this research, only two manufacturers offered women’s turnout gear. Now, to our knowledge, all but one [seven out of eight] does, which is a significant advancement across the industry. There is still much work to do in fine tuning these designs to fit the specific anthropometrics of female firefighters.
DO YOU WORRY ABOUT THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF BEING A FIREFIGHTER?
REID: Do I worry? I wouldn’t say worry. I’m more mindful of it, because the material of today is different from years ago. It burns faster, and then there’s more chemically made things than like natural resources. So I’m aware of that. They also have training teaching us about things like that. And there’s smoke exposures, there’s a health risk like sleep deprivation or sleep disruption.
WHAT KIND OF EDUCATION OR TRAINING DO YOU NEED TO BECOME A FIREFIGHTER?
REID: So there’s a few routes to get onto the job. The cadet route would be … you have to be 18 to 21 years old, you have to be a D.C. resident, have a high school diploma from a D.C. school (public or private), or have a GED, and you have to have at least a learner’s permit at the time that you are applying for the job. To be a recruit, you have to be at least 18 years old, have a full driver’s license, (not just a permit), and you also have to have a high school diploma or GED. The third way [is as] a paramedic, and you have to come on the job with your paramedic license.
WHAT’S YOUR ADVICE FOR YOUNG WOMEN CONSIDERING THIS PATH?
REID: I would say, welcome. Come on the job. We need females. I always think it’s awesome when we get young ladies that are interested in the fire side. A lot of females just only want to do EMS. There’s nothing against EMS, but the fire side is pretty cool, too. Don’t sell yourself short, just try to do both of them. It’s a very rewarding job. You have to also mentally prepare yourself and physically prepare yourself. But I think the job is a great experience. I wish I would have started younger myself.
Mariyah Matthews is in the class of 2027 at Bard High School Early College DC, one of Youthcast Media Group’s journalism class partners. Sarah Gandluri is a YMG intern who is studying political science and global studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
White House
Trump-appointed judge restores White House TV pool access
Judge called in to question president’s justification of the ban
A federal judge ordered the White House to restore West Wing press credentials to three news organizations after President Donald Trump attempted to bar their access for unfavorable reporting.
Early Thursday morning, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order brought by POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW as part of a joint lawsuit. The lawsuit cites the imperative role of a “free press” and ordered the 78 journalists’ credentials returned to the three outlets for at least the next two weeks as litigation plays out.
In the eight-page ruling, the judge goes over a slew of laws that Trump may have violated in banning the three media groups — from stepping on their First Amendment rights to a free press to the Fifth Amendment right to due process.
The judge also questioned Trump’s justification for removing the outlets, originally saying it was a matter of national security.
“The court is skeptical — at least on this record — that defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes,” Kelly wrote in an 8-page ruling issued just before 1 a.m. ET.
“Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs’ reporting,” the judge added.
The Washington Blade reached out to the White House press office asking if the administration would file an appeal to keep the journalists out of the West Wing but did not hear back before publication time.
