Connect with us

Opinions

Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ laws undermine protections for LGBTQ teachers, students

Measures must be stricken down, enjoined, or otherwise invalidated

Published

on

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (Screen capture via NBC News)

Formally entitled the “Parental Rights in Education Act,” Florida House Bill 1557 amends Florida Statute § 1001.42 to add a new subsection 8(c)(3), which provides: “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” In May of this year, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 1069, which has been viewed as expanding H.B. 1557 by requiring that sex education classes in Florida teach that “sex is determined by biology and reproductive function at birth,” and that reproductive gender roles are “binary, stable, and unchangeable.” Among other things, the new bill also broadens the ban on classroom discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation so that it covers pre-kindergarten through eighth grade and prevents employees from using pronouns other than those that correspond with sex assigned at birth. Critics of these laws have labeled H.B. 1557 and H.B. 1069 “Don’t Say Gay” laws. We share these critics’ concerns.

Below, we highlight the potential of these laws to undermine anti-discrimination protections for teachers and students at public educational institutions in Florida and summarize litigation challenging these laws.

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). In a 6-3 decision, the Court interpreted existing federal law to protect LGBTQ individuals from discrimination in employment and public accommodations by recognizing sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result of Bostock, LGBT individuals who work for an employer with fifteen (15) or more employees, and who have experienced discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, now have the right to take legal action against their employer by filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or taking their employer to court.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Florida Human Rights Commission issued a notice that clarified that the agency would now broaden its mandate to include combatting discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Thus, after Bostock, LGBTQ Floridians, including teachers, gained vital anti-discrimination protections at work and in housing under both federal and state law.

Bostock v. Clayton County has been interpreted to protect LGBTQ students from discrimination as well. For instance, in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, 972 F.3d 586 (4th Cir. 2020),the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit relied on Bostock to hold that disparate treatment on the basis of a student’s sexual orientation and transgender status—in this case, barring transgender students from using school restrooms that align with their gender identity—is considered discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Id. at 618–19. These protections are especially important for LGBTQ students in conservative states like Florida; these students may face discrimination on a direct level as well as indirectly from institutions and political players who aim to promote homophobic and transphobic rhetoric and policies. 

Unfortunately, the victory represented by Bostock has been overshadowed by H.B. 1557 and H.B. 1069.

II. Harm and Confusion Created by H.B. 1557 and H.B. 1069 

While it is too soon to know how H.B. 1557 and H.B. 1069 will impact the application of Bostock, there is cause for alarm. Under Florida law, if a parent raises a concern about compliance with H.B. 1557 and that concern is not “resolved by the school district,” the parent may proceed before a special magistrate or “[b]ring an action against the school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that the school district procedure or practice violates [H.B. 1557] and seek injunctive relief.” Fla. Stat. § 1001.42(8)(c)(7)(b). If the parent prevails in the suit, the court may offer the parent damages and “shall award reasonable attorney fees and court costs.” Id.

Undoubtedly, Florida’s LGBTQ teachers will face greater scrutiny and potential legal obstacles as a result of these laws. As critics have pointed out, these laws’ ambiguity and undefined terms represent a potential minefield for LGBTQ teachers. For instance, Florida law now bans instructing some students on sexual orientation. Would a gay teacher who mentions in class that he has a husband violate this law? Would a cisgender teacher with a nonbinary child be in violation if she referenced her child by their proper pronouns in front of her students? 

For transgender and nonbinary teachers, the environment is even more dangerous. H.B. 1069, which went into effect on July 1, 2023, states: “An employee or contractor of a public K–12 educational institution may not provide to a student his or her preferred personal title or pronouns if such preferred personal title or pronouns do not correspond to his or her sex,” with “sex” defined in strictly “biological” terms. Fla. Stat. § 1000.071(1), (3). It is unclear whether this language (i) forbids a transgender or gender-nonconforming teacher from providing the teacher’s own preferred pronouns to students, or (ii) forbids a teacher from providing a transgender or gender-nonconforming student’s preferred pronouns to that student—or both. Ambiguities aside, this provision is likely to force transgender and nonbinary teachers in Florida back into the closet or ban them from teaching in Florida schools altogether. If transgender and nonbinary teachers are prohibited from truthfully representing their identities in front of their students, transgender and nonbinary identities are essentially banished from the classroom entirely. 

Already, headlines have been made by teachers who have fallen on the wrong side of these new laws. For instance, the Hernando County School Board placed a fifth-grade teacher in Brooksville, Fla. under investigation for showing her class a Disney film that depicted a gay character. In another instance, an assistant principal in Polk County was told that she couldn’t pass out LGBTQ-inclusive “safe space” stickers because it violated the new legislation. Some teachers have publicly decried that the laws make their jobs nearly impossible and others have decided to quit teaching altogether. 

While these laws are new and their impact on Florida’s LGBTQ teachers and other staff is only just beginning to be understood, the socio-political movement that paved the way for this legislation has been decades in the making. In 1977, singer and political activist Anita Bryant led an anti-LGBTQ campaign in Dade County, Florida, targeting housing and employment protections for gay individuals. Bryant was particularly concerned that the ordinance would prevent gay teachers from being fired for their sexual orientation and she argued that gay teachers posed a threat to Florida’s children. Unfortunately, the campaign was a short-term success for anti-LGBTQ activists, culminating with the repeal of a nondiscrimination ordinance. Historians note that this tactic of using the protection of children to restrict LGBTQ rights was seen even before Bryant’s crusade, with the infamous Johns Committee in 1958 targeting and eliminating LGBTQ individuals from Florida schools. 

Although Bryant initially won the repeal of the ordinance, her activism spurred LGBTQ mobilization that ultimately successfully countered her bigoted efforts.

III. Lawsuits to Enjoin Enforcement 

We are aware of two recently filed cases seeking to enjoin enforcement of H.B. 1557.

First is M.A. v. Florida State Board of Education, No. 4:22CV00134 (N.D. Fla.), a case that was initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on March 31, 2022. In M.A., a group of students, parents, and teachers advanced claims arising from alleged violations of the Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the First Amendment, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. On February 15, 2023, District Judge Allen Winsor, a Trump appointee, concluded that the plaintiffs had “not alleged sufficient facts to show standing” and dismissed the case. M.A. v. Fla. State Bd. of Educ., No. 4:22-cv-134-AW-MJF, 2023 WL 2631071, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2023). In so holding, the court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to “allege facts showing any concrete future harm that is fairly traceable to [H.B. 1557’s] enforcement and redressable by an injunction prohibiting that enforcement.” Id. at *2. On March 20, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See M.A. v. Fla. State Bd. of Educ., No. 23-10866, Dkt. 1 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2023). In their appellate briefing, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred because the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to confer standing in the form of “three distinct injuries caused by H.B. 1557”: (i) a chilling effect on speech, (ii) denial of access to ideas and information in school, and (iii) stigma and unequal treatment in schools based on LGBT status. See M.A. v. Fla. State Bd. of Educ., No. 23-10866, Dkt. 38, at 38 (11th Cir. May 31, 2023). As of this writing, the appeal remains pending before the Eleventh Circuit.

Second is Cousins v. School Board of Orange County, Florida, No. 6:22-CV-01312 (M.D. Fla.), which was initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on July 25, 2022. The plaintiffs in Cousins were a group of students and parents, as well as a mission-driven non-profit called CenterLink, Inc, who advanced claims arising from alleged violations of the First Amendment and the Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. On August 16, 2023, District Judge Wendy Berger, also a Trump appointee, dismissed the case for reasons similar to the reasons provided by Judge Winsor in the M.A. litigation. See Cousins v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., Fla., No. 6:22-cv-1312-WWB-LHP, Dkt. 143 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2023). As of this writing, the plaintiffs have not appealed the decision.

It remains unclear whether and to what extent these two cases will succeed in enjoining enforcement of H.B. 1557 and H.B. 1069. Settlement discussions are currently ongoing in the M.A. case, and we are cautiously optimistic that the plaintiffs in that case will be able to obtain some form of relief.

Whether through litigation, legislative repeal or some other means, Florida’s recently enacted anti-LGBT laws are harmful and should be stricken down, enjoined, or otherwise invalidated.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Successful open relationships take effort

We have options as couples but they all require work

Published

on

Jake Stewart

(Editor’s note: This is the second of a two-part feature on open relationships. Click here for last week’s installment.)

Open relationships are often ridiculed as the easy way out of commitment. After speaking with Scott and Kelsey, however, it’s clear they’re anything but easy. 

Kelsey reflected on the ups and downs of being open in the past. “Younger me definitely needed it,” Kelsey said. “At the same time, drama came with it as well.”

While Scott and their partner have been together for nine years, it took four before they decided to open their relationship. “It came from the desire for the two of us to meet boys together,” said Scott. “Then we had some really terrible threesomes.” 

Drama. Bad threesomes. Yikes – these aren’t exactly selling points for being open. But their experiences underscore something important: open relationships, like all relationships, are actually quite hard. Couples considering openness shouldn’t trick themselves into thinking it will make things easier. In reality, they take a lot of work. 

For Scott, those really terrible threesomes led them to opening up further, but with established boundaries. “We came up with ground rules. Use protection. No spending the night at somebody’s house, etc.”  

Since Scott and their partner are happy in their relationship, these rules seem to work even if they’ve shifted over time. “Being in an open relationship comes down to being really good at communicating with your partner,” they added. “It’s about communicating and checking in to see where your partner is.”

Open relationships should be for the right reasons 

As open relationships began taking off, observers were skeptical for good reason. “In the past, people were just cheating,” said Kelsey. Another comment from Scott echoed this. “I’ve seen open relationships and it felt like one partner was being taken advantage of by the other.” 

It turns out there is a fine line between sexual exploration and free passes. While some open relationships walk that line well, others – not so much.  

In all fairness, now more than ever it’s difficult to remain monogamous, and one culprit is the rise of accessible hookup culture via social media. Apps like Tinder, Grindr, and dare I say Instagram are facilitating secret sexual connections never seen before. They ushered in a new era of cheating into relationships, alongside a bit of excessive stalking as well. 

So, to avoid an atmosphere of mistrust and pain, a natural evolution for couples is to change the rules altogether. Cheating can’t be cheating if it’s allowed, right?

However, once it is allowed, I wondered why these people don’t cut the strings altogether and be single. In response, Chad made an interesting point: people aren’t just afraid of being cheated on – they’re afraid of the appearance of being single as well. We live in flashy times where our online image means everything. The dream is not necessarily having a partner, but showing the world you have a partner. Without that, you otherwise appear lonely. 

So, do open relationships ease the pain of cheating and perceived loneliness? As a proud lone wolf I’m not the best person to assess, but based on my observations I can say this: being open works for some couples, but by no means is it a fast pass to being happy. Understanding why you want one is just as important as discovering how to make one work. 

With all this said, the undeniable risk – and perhaps downside – of a monogamous coupling is the higher chance of cheating outright. Unfortunately, that’s something Chad knows all too well. 

Preferring monogamy is still OK

Chad had dated someone for two years before they married for five. Then, just over a year into the pandemic, his husband informed him he was dating someone else. They separated a few days later. 

For Chad this was painful, as it is for anyone, gay or straight, who’s gone through something similar. But when I asked him if this experience shaped his outlook on what he’s looking for, his response came as a bit of a surprise: 

“It has not changed my view for or against open relationships,” he said. “I learned a lot in my marriage. It takes a lot of love, trust, and communication, which at times can feel like work. It also takes two; one can’t carry the relationship. I want to date someone who wants to be in a relationship with me.” 

My heart swells hearing that, for even after experiencing the deepest kind of hurt, Chad searches for his one and only. Why? Because for him, the love he’s looking for is worth the wait. It’s a beautiful sentiment that makes so-called hopeless romanticism the raddest feeling in the world sometimes. 

More importantly, Chad doesn’t let fear alter his view on love, and to me that’s the most important lesson of this article. Love always comes with risks, and lowering your standards to reduce them never really pans out, does it? The best we can do is to be ourselves. 

By the way, this is a lesson I should also apply. My main hesitation toward an open relationship is that I’m a jealous bitch, and I fear that jealousy will never go away. Yet this can be hard to admit when everyone around you is propping up a culture where open is supreme and jealousy is immature. 

When I brought this up to Kelsey, she pushed back with a simple question: “Do you think jealousy is a bad thing?” 

This caught me off guard. “I’m not sure,” I replied. “Do you?” 

“Jealousy is a natural, human emotion,” she said. “It’s what you do with it that matters.” 

So, maybe my goal is not to suppress my jealousy but rather be upfront about it. If it’s part of me, I should own it, then ideally find someone who loves me regardless.  

Changing your mind is OK, too

In gay man speak, I was a top for my first seven years before I embraced bottoming. For some, they’d be shocked to hear it. Yet maybe no one should be surprised, for as we all know sexuality is fluid, and this applies to more than just your orientation. Your sexual preferences can shift over time, too, and this will inevitably affect your relationships. 

This was the case for Scott and their partner. “When we first started dating, we did not want to be open,” they mentioned, “but as our relationship grew, we decided to reevaluate that.” Meanwhile, Kelsey went the opposite direction – she was open back in the day but chooses to be closed now. 

Even Chad remains open to being open. “I’m not opposed to an open relationship, but I feel like it would take more work. I just don’t see myself starting a relationship open. The first few years there is a lot of learning about each other.” 

In a world of shifting preferences, the best we can do is reflect on what we want and be honest about it. Life is a process of discovering who we are, and damn is it messy. So, perhaps I should cut some slack to the couple trying things out. And perhaps they can cut me slack for not understanding their rules. 

For the couples: remember, a solid relationship is not only about meeting the needs of your partner, because your needs matter, too. The best relationships, open or closed, strive to find that balance. 

For those still searching: remember that love is more than just that thing, that connection, that spark. In fact, love is so complex that the “spark” is just one of many factors, alongside timing and how you want to be loved, that come together and form an imprint as unique and special as the person you want to be with.

In this sense, open and closed relationships aren’t diametrically opposed but rather complimentary, a sort of yin and yang where both become better because the other option exists. Today, we have options as couples, and that’s significantly better than abiding by rules because we assume that’s how it must be.

And that feels right. Because regardless of whether you’re more a Chad or a Scott, the truth is: I feel lucky to have both.  

(Writer’s note: A big thank you you to Chad, Scott, and Kelsey for allowing me to share their stories.)

Jake Stewart is a D.C.-based writer and barback.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Fact: The next president will be Biden or Trump

One candidate is clearly better for the future of the world

Published

on

(Washington Blade file photos by Michael Key)

Like it or not, the next president will be either Joe Biden or Donald Trump. In our system, third-party candidates are simply spoilers, they don’t win. The last time a third-party candidate won was 1856. It has been 36 years since a third-party candidate even got more than 5% of the vote. So, it’s time to face reality and choose; for your future, do you want Biden or Trump? 

I was prompted to write this column because I see the media interviewing young people about who they want as their president. I have great respect for the young people of today. In many ways, they are smarter than my generation was. But it’s clear, some don’t fully understand the presidential election process. I hear many complain about Biden, and then follow that up and say they will never vote for Trump. Some then say they will vote for a third-party candidate. They need to understand their third-party candidate will not win, but their vote could help elect Trump. I hate to say it, but in 2024, voting for a third-party candidate is the equivalent to flushing your ballot down the toilet. 

I am an unabashed Biden supporter. I see the great things he has done, including: getting us through the fallout from the pandemic, passing an infrastructure bill, forgiving billions in student loans, ensuring our economy is the best in the world with more than 13 million jobs created, and increasing wages. He supports unions, being the first president to walk a picket line with the UAW. His administration is working to deal with climate change. He is fighting for a woman’s right to control her own body and healthcare, and supports full equality for the LGBTQ community. In this dangerous world he has kept our troops out of war.

Then there is Trump. To be clear; I see him as a racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, pig. OK, so maybe I don’t have strong feelings about him. Trump has been found liable for sexual assault and has been indicted on 91 counts. He proudly claims credit for having taken away control of their body and healthcare from women, when the justices he appointed ended Roe v. Wade. He supports states making decisions on abortion, and we see what recently happened in Arizona. He is a climate change denier and is opposed to wind and solar power. He wants to give more tax deductions to the rich and to corporations, while opposing any increase in the minimum wage. He opposes equality for the LGBTQ community, refusing to endorse the Equality Act. He opposes student debt relief.

You may see these candidates differently, and that is OK. But if you like one more than the other, fear one more than the other, or just aren’t enamored by either, you must still make a choice and vote for one of them. Staying home is abrogating your civic responsibility, and especially if you would never vote for Trump, understand your staying home helps him. 

Young voters, like all voters, should take the time to do the research on both candidates. Then match what you find as close as possible to what you want to see as your future. If you want student loan relief, equality for the LGBTQ community, women having control of their body and healthcare, equal pay for women, efforts to ameliorate the impact of climate change, then clearly Trump is not your candidate. 

I hear some young people say they won’t vote for Biden because of his positions on the Israel/Hamas war. I, too, have called for Israel to recalibrate how they fight this war. But I ask you to look again at Trump’s history of attachment to Netanyahu, even going so far as relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. If you want a chance for the Palestinian people to live in peace and prosperity, for Israel to remove their settlements from the West Bank, your chance of having that happen is clearly better with Biden than Trump. Don’t let your emotions today, cloud the reality of the future.

Yes, Biden is old, but so is Trump. He apparently can’t even stay awake at his own trial having nodded off two days in a row.  So, since one of them will be president, with no third-party candidate having a chance, I urge you to look at them again, in a realistic way. Then make your choice. I think you may come to the same conclusion I have. Though not perfect, and no one is, Biden is the better candidate for your future, and for the future of the world. 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Don’t avoid drug education on 4/20 day

Cannabis culture continues to grow in the District

Published

on

In 2023, the law was signed to expand the District’s medical cannabis program. It also made permanent provisions allowing residents ages 21 and older to self-certify as medical cannabis patients. Overall, cannabis is fully legal in D.C. for medical and recreational use, and 4/20 Day is widely celebrated. 

Medical cannabis, for example, has a long history with the LGBTQ community, and they have often been one of the oldest supporters of marijuana and some of the most enthusiastic consumers. Cannabis use also has a long history of easing the pain of the LGBTQ community as relief from HIV symptoms and as a method of coping with rejection from society. 

The cannabis culture continues to grow in the District, and as a result, so does the influence on younger people, even youth within the LGBTQ community. Drug education can play an important role and should not be avoided during 4/20 Day. Parents and educators can use drug education to help their kids understand the risks involved with using marijuana at a young age. 

According to DC Health Matters, marijuana use among high school students has been on the decline in the District since 2017. In 2021, it was estimated that around 20% of high school students use marijuana, a drop from 33% in 2017. Nationally, in 2020, approximately 41.3% of sexual minority adults 18 and older reported past-year marijuana use, compared to 18.7% of the overall adult population.

When parents and educators engage with their kids about marijuana, consider keeping the conversations age appropriate. Speaking with a five-year-old is much different than speaking with a teenager. Use language and examples a child or teen would understand. 

The goal is to educate them about the risks and dangers of using cannabis at a young age and what to avoid, such as edibles. 

Most important, put yourself in your kid’s shoes. This can be especially important for teenagers as they face different social pressures and situations at school, with peer groups, or through social media. Make a point of understanding what they are up against. 

When speaking to them about cannabis, stay calm and relaxed, stay positive, don’t lecture, and be clear and concise about boundaries without using scare tactics or threats. 

Yet, it’s OK to set rules, guidelines, and expectations; create rules together as a family or class. Parents and educators can be clear about the consequences without lecturing but clearly stating what is expected regarding cannabis use. 

Moreover, choose informal times to have conversations about cannabis and do not make a big thing about it. Yet, continue talking to them as they age, and let them know you are always there for them.     

Finally, speak to them about peer pressure and talk with them about having an exit plan when they are offered marijuana. Peer pressure is powerful among youth, and having a plan to avoid drug use helps children and students make better choices. Ultimately, it is about assisting them in making good choices as they age. 

Members of the LGBTQ community often enter treatment with more severe substance use disorders. Preventative measures involving drug education are effective in helping youth make good choices and learn about the risks.

Marcel Gemme is the founder of SUPE and has been helping people struggling with substance use for over 20 years. His work focuses on a threefold approach: education, prevention, and rehabilitation.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular