Connect with us

Opinions

With or without websites and cakes, we will continue to get married

U.S. Supreme Court ruled against LGBTQ people in the 303 Creative case

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

History! That’s what this U.S. Supreme Court accomplished last Friday with its most recent decision toward the LGBTQ+ protected class. It’s the first time in history that a Supreme Court, despite the composition of its members, has restricted rights and benefits to a protected class instead of granting them more. The Supreme Court, throughout history, has been a tent to extend the interpretation of federal laws to give more rights and include more protected classes within them. Despite the immobility of Congress and the difficulties of getting new bills to become federal law, the Supreme Court has always found a way to create more jurisprudence to benefit vulnerable populations. Until now, unfortunately. 

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example, states that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Even though the original text of Title VI didn’t include protections for individuals with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), on Aug. 11, 2000, the president signed Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” extending national origin protections to LEP individuals. This extension occurred after several Supreme Court decisions where individuals from other nationalities with limited English proficiency couldn’t access the same benefits. 

Another example was the first case where Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brought to the attention of the Supreme Court the unconstitutionality of a law that limited women’s rights in Idaho. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the first time gender discrimination was recognized as a direct violation of the Constitution and became the basis for future decisions. For the first time in history, the Supreme Court decided that gender/sex equality was classified as a protected class under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Finally, in 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County (Ga.), No. 17-1618, in a historic decision, the Supreme Court extended sex protections under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to sexual orientation and gender identity from job discrimination. As we can see, throughout history, the Supreme Court has tentatively extended protections to protected classes instead of restricting them. 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §2000a states that all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any place of public housing, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. This title was challenged several times after its approval by different businesses in the United States. However, in several decisions from the Supreme Court was resolved that Congress didn’t exceed its power under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to regulate the commerce between states and deny the discrimination against black individuals in their right to equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public housing, under Title II of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court decided in several cases that discriminatory actions against black people during the offering of services affected the economy of the United States and the commerce between the states. 

Is race, color, religion, or national origin protected classifications more important than sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and age? Colorado law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, C.R.S. § 24-34-601 et seq. Like Title II of the Civil Rights Act, Colorado law classifies public accommodations as any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any site offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to the public. The same law considers it discriminatory to refuse or deny any service against a person because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin and ancestry. Colorado law doesn’t go against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s more comprehensive and extensive. The constitutional right of occupied field doctrine stems from Art. VI, Sec. 2 of the Constitution establishes that in the event of a conflict between a state law and a federal law, the federal law shall prevail if it has been validly approved. The intention to occupy the field can arise explicitly, from the precise letter of the law, or implicitly, according to its structure and purpose. The Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that the preemption case law doctrine applies only when Congress expressly occupies the field or when it is evident that Congress intended to exclude state legislation on a given affair. The Supreme Court has constantly expressed that state legislation is not superseded when the interest to be protected locally differs from those covered by federal law.

How is denying public accommodation against people because of their race unconstitutional, but not on the grounds of sexual orientation? It’s clear that Colorado’s law is constitutional since Congress hasn’t occupied the field of limiting the protected class under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, and the Supreme Court has extended its benefits to other types, including orientation and gender identity. 

According to the Human Rights Campaign, we live in a state of emergency. More than 400 bills nationwide have been presented against the LGBTQ+ community. It’s not a causality that in the middle of all of this and a significant anti-LGBTQ+ movement, the Supreme Court has taken a historic step against minorities and vulnerable populations. However, when we analyze the reasons behind these cases against the LGBTQ+ community and their right to get married, we can undoubtedly conclude that our fight for obtaining the right to get married hasn’t ended yet. With or without cakes and websites, we will continue to enforce, enjoy and use our freedom to get married. No matter how many legal cases are presented against our right to enjoy a life of equality, we will still get married. But now, more than ever, we will keep fighting for our rights.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

A dream: Democrats focus on candidates who can win

Defeating every Republican has to be the goal in 2026, 2028

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

I know this is just a dream, but I am a dreamer and continue to hope Democrats can get beyond Black or white, gay or straight, man or woman; to look at who can win in 2026, and then in 2028. It’s often said each election is the most consequential in our lifetime. The next two actually are. 

The reality is without change; we face losing our democracy. We have a racist, sexist, homophobic, lying felon, in the White House. He has a Cabinet of vile incompetents, and a cadre of fascist advisers, controlling our government. They threaten our freedoms, and even our health. They think the military is theirs to use at will, without restrictions. Again, my dream for elections in 2026 and 2028, is we put our personal desires aside, for the good of the nation.

Everyone is being hurt by Trump. Black women being fired in huge numbers. Transgender people literally having their lives threatened. The LGBTQ community facing new threats. Civil rights are being undermined, and the Latino community across the country is targeted. Women are losing the right to control their bodies. Our voting rights are being threatened, and all this is happening with the consent of the Republican sycophants in Congress who are either in complete agreement with the felon, or threatened into submission by him, and his fascist cohorts. This is what we are facing in the next two election cycles as we try to take back our country. As the opposition party, we must first take back Congress in 2026. If we succeed, we must replicate that success as we work to reclaim the White House in 2028. 

I believe we must all be represented in our elected officials. For years I felt comfortable looking at the equality issue in choosing a candidate, as even in the worst-case scenarios, when losing meant the election of the likes of a Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, I never believed my country’s existence was threatened. They, and others like them, may have been vile, but none professed wanting to be king. They didn’t go to court seeking full immunity for anything they did and getting it from judges they appointed. 

I am a proud gay man but will not automatically vote for an LGBTQ candidate in the next elections. In 2024, I worked hard, and proudly, to see two strong Black women elected to the United States Senate. In the 2008 primary I was proud to stand with Hillary Clinton, then support Barack Obama when he won the nomination. In 2016, I again stood with Hillary. In 2020, I proudly supported Kamala Harris as vice president and then supported her for president in 2024. 

Today, I am looking at the next two election cycles differently. I have written the only way to win back my country is to look at which Democrat can win in a particular race. I will support a Democrat committed to voting for the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate, and in their state legislature, even if they don’t support fully everything I want. Because when Democrats win the leadership, they set the agenda. The Democratic platform has been about the same for many years. It stands for equality in every area. Have we accomplished all we stand for, clearly NO. Have we made progress, clearly YES. 

In these upcoming elections each Democrat may win their race with a different set of issues at the forefront. I have suggested in the morning they go to the diners in their district, and in the evening to the bars, to find out what people are talking about, and concerned about. Then respond to that by running on those issues. If there is a primary, demand each candidate pledge to fully support the winner. Think about what is said about Democrats and Republicans, “Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.” Well in the next two election cycles, Democrats need to fall in line with every Democrat on the ballot in the general election willing to say, “if elected I will vote for, and support, the Democratic leadership.” 

If we don’t commit to doing that in the next two election cycles, we may actually not have future elections. It is the only way we can stop the felon, and his fascist government, from winning. Defeating every Republican in 2026 and 2028, has to be the goal for all who care about our country, and moving on to the next 250 years. Not winning is not an option.  


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Capital Pride must be transparent about sexual misconduct investigation

More questions than answers after two board members resign

Published

on

A scene from last year's WorldPride Parade organized by Capital Pride. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

We are living through some very difficult times in our country. We have a felon in the White House who has surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants and fascists. A Congress that bows down to him, often based on his threats. Things have gotten so bad that his supporters are beginning to wake up to the fact that he cares not a whit for them. They are demanding he stop hiding his involvement with the convicted sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, and come clean. So, to distract them from this, he began a war in the Middle East in which members of the American military have already lost their lives. He says more lives will be lost. He hopes this war of distraction will have Americans forget his failed domestic policies and the Epstein scandal. 

But at the same time that all of this is happening, I am forced to look around at organizations I support and ask if they are being open and honest in the way we are demanding of the felon in the White House.

Recently, I have received calls about an organization I have the utmost pride in: Capital Pride. The calls are about Capital Pride’s internal investigation of “a claim” made against a former board chair, who resigned and no longer has any role with the organization. There has been no public proof of any wrongdoing. At the time, Capital Pride announced it had retained an “independent firm” to investigate the complaint. Now, more than four months later, a second board member has resigned sharing her letter of resignation with the Blade. 

Taylor Lianne Chandler, a member of the Capital Pride board of directors since 2019 who served as the board’s secretary, submitted a letter of resignation on Feb. 24 that alleges the board has failed to address instances of “sexual misconduct” at Capital Pride. 

“This board has made its priorities clear through its actions: protecting a sexual predator matters more than protecting the people who had the courage to come forward. … I have been targeted, bullied, and made to feel like an outsider for doing what any person of integrity would do – telling the truth,” Chandler wrote in her resignation letter. 

The Blade reported the organization announced, “As we continue to grow our organization, we’re proactively strengthening the policies and procedures that shape our systems, our infrastructure, and the support we provide to our team and partners.” 

Again, it is four months later, and there has been no information from Capital Pride regarding that investigation.

Chandler said a Capital Pride investigation identified one individual implicated in a “pattern” of sexual harassment related behavior over a period of time. She added she was bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement that applies to all board members and she cannot disclose the name of the person implicated in alleged sexual misconduct or those who came forward to complain about it. She added, “It was one individual, but there was a pattern and a history.” 

Again, reading that letter from Chandler and because of the news being full of the Epstein scandal, it makes me want assurances that no organization representing my community will ever think it can cover up issues like this. Capital Pride leadership must be totally transparent. 

Capital Pride is a wonderful organization with so many incredible people working and volunteering there. They make our community proud. I never want to see a blemish on the organization. So, I am calling on them to be open and transparent about the investigation they themselves announced, and let the community know what they found, in detail. More important even than the entire community knowing, is for their staff and volunteers to know what they found. No one should be bound by an NDA, which leads to people thinking something really bad is going on.

I thought twice, even three times, before writing this column. I don’t want it to be seen as casting aspersions on all of Capital Pride, or anyone who may have worked there, or volunteered there. But again, because of the focus on the Epstein scandal, and my writing about the felon and his Cabinet officials involved in it, my calling for them to come clean and tell us all they know, I feel compelled to say the same to the organization I have supported over the years, which even honored me as a Capital Pride Hero in 2016. I want them to move forward and be a beacon of light for our community for many years to come. The work they do makes a difference for so many. 

I wrote in my memoir that coming to a Pride event helped me to come out, and I am sure it has done the same for so many others in our community. What Capital Pride does is important and it must be as transparent as we demand of any other organization.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Opinions

An undeclared war of distraction by the felon

Will Trump claim a national emergency to undermine midterms?

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The president of the United States in his rambling speech about our attack on Iran, recorded during a campaign trip, said, “The Iranian regime seeks to kill. The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties — that often happens in war — but we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.” 

Well, the United States has not declared war on Iran, only Congress can do that, not the president. As I write this, the felon has yet to make a live speech to the American people about what he is doing, and Americans have already lost their lives. He is weekending as he usually does at Mar-a-Lago. I wonder if he has the balls to head out to the golf course while American lives continue to be at stake.

This operation is clearly the felon’s way of distracting the people of the United States from his failed domestic policies. From rising food prices, rents, and health insurance. From the loss of manufacturing jobs, as reported in November ”manufacturing shed another 6,000 jobs in September, for a total loss of 58,000 since April.” Had he not acted on Iran now every news outlet in the nation would have reported on the Epstein scandal with the release of the depositions, video and transcripts, of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, in front of the Congressional Oversight Committee.

Even more frightening is this may be his way of preparing to claim a national emergency to undermine the midterm elections, which he is clearly on target to lose, now that his Save America Act has been defeated in Congress.  

Americans must ask themselves how long they will put up with this warmonger, racist, sexist, lying, homophobic, SOB, who cares not a whit for them, but only for himself, and his rich colleagues, taking as much grift as they all can, while he is president. 

None of this is to say we shouldn’t put constraints on Iran, work to see they never have a nuclear bomb, and limit their production of missiles. We were working toward the goal of stopping them from having a nuclear bomb when the felon, in his first term, pulled us out of the agreement to move forward on that. Today, he has sidelined the State Department, and his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, in negotiations, and has relied on his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff.  The attack was commenced while negotiations were underway. At the end of last week it was reported, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi, who mediated the talks in Geneva, said there had been “significant progress in the negotiation.” Al-Busaidi added, “Technical-level talks would continue next week in Vienna, the home of the International Atomic Energy Agency.” The United Nations’ atomic watchdog likely would be critical in any deal. 

So clearly this is all about what the two negotiators, who have sidelined the State Department, Kushner and Witkoff, secretly reported to the felon. My guess is some progress was being made, clearly it was not what the president wanted. So, what ruled was his immediate need for a distraction after the failure of his State of the Union address to make any impact on his sagging poll numbers. 

I have written often of the alternate universe Trump has us living in. I am just waiting for his MAGA cult to react to this. Will they still blindly follow everything he says, or will the Laura Loomers of the world finally say, “screw this, take care of us at home, do what you promised to make our lives better”. The first MAGA to say this was Marjorie Taylor Greene. Then Tucker Carlson added his slam against the felon. His PR flack, Karoline Leavitt, is getting confused by all the lies, recently saying “things are better than they were last year.” Clearly forgetting last year was 2025, and the felon was president for all except for 20 days of it, so is responsible for last year. 

I am an optimist and believe our democracy will survive him, and his fascist cohorts’ blatant attacks. We won a revolution against one king, and survived a civil war, becoming even stronger as a united nation. We helped Europe defeat Hitler. I believe Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) when he says the military will reject illegal orders. Orders that ask them to act against their fellow countrymen and women. I believe the American people will come to their senses before it’s too late. They will finally reject the POS in the White House, and the sycophants, and fascists, surrounding him in time to reclaim our nation for all the people. 


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Popular