Connect with us

Politics

Gloria Allred at the DNC: Harris is ‘more than ready for this job’

Trailblazing attorney spoke exclusively with the Washington Blade

Published

on

CHICAGO — Vice President Kamala Harris, the 2024 Democratic nominee for president, is “more than ready for this job,” Gloria Allred told the Washington Blade on the sidelines of an LGBTQ caucus meeting during the Democratic National Convention on Monday.

“I met [Harris] when she was running for District Attorney of San Francisco, and she came to my office to seek my support, which, of course, I gave her,” Allred said. “I was extremely impressed with her at the time.”

“Usually I don’t make time to meet with political figures, frankly, because I’m so busy with the cases,” she said. “And I just, you know, can’t. But for some reason, I said, ‘Okay, I’ll meet her in my office,’ and I did, and I just had a feeling about her. And I’m so happy.”

Allred stressed that “we have to work to make it happen because it’s not going to happen just if we hope for it, we wish for it, we pray for it. We have to work for it.”

She also pointed out the dangers of Donald Trump’s candidacy for a second term in the White House, warning, “The Trump administration was just a disaster and a catastrophe for the country. And what they are doing now, Project 2025 in terms of pro-choice, in terms of gay and lesbian and transgender rights, is just a disaster.”

The former president, Allred said, “wants to distance himself from it” but “he can’t because so many of his employees, or former employees, I should say, from the administration, were involved in writing it — and also, of course, he’s on video talking about how great it was and is.”

An attorney whose career has spanned five decades, Allred has argued some of the most high profile civil rights cases in America, with a particular focus on LGBTQ and women’s rights, often representing some of the most famous public figures, from politicians to entertainers.

“I just want to say, my law firm and I have been involved in advocating and litigating for gay, lesbian, and transgender rights since the late 1970s,” Allred said. “I know what going back means when they we say ‘we won’t go back,’ because I’ve been saying that at pro-choice marches and gay and lesbian protests since that time.”

“No one has ever given women our rights. We’ve always had to fight for women. And this is the same for gay, lesbian, transgender, you know, bisexual, the whole community — no one’s giving us anything. No one ever gave us anything. We always have to fight to win it.”

At the DNC, “that’s what we’re doing here, is organizing, and I’m just really proud of the community that they’re here, educating people and helping to mobilize them,” Allred said. “Because we have to mobilize, we have to organize, and we have to help raise money to win.”

Trump, she said, has “billionaires supporting him,” and while Harris and the Democrats can win, Allred cautioned “we have to be really committed. There are not many days left to do it.”

“We have a real commitment, and we know how much more this election can make in terms of a difference for the community and equal rights for all,” Allred added.

Allred’s precedent-setting LGBTQ rights cases

Gloria Allred, center, with California marriage equality plaintiffs Robin Tyler and Diane Olson in 2013. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Allred told the Blade about several landmark cases that she litigated on behalf of LGBTQ clients, going back several decades, including one involving two gay men who attended their high school reunion in the 1980s and were told their photo would not be published in the book because “the publisher felt it was against his religion to publish a photo of two gay men together.”

“We sued them, and after 16 years of litigating it all the way up to the California Court of Appeals, we won,” Allred said. The matter earned media attention, as the publisher “took out advertisements in the newspapers” arguing that “he had a right of free speech and religious expression to not publish” the photo.

“Well, we won the case in California decades ago,” she said.

Allred noted that apart from the role of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act in her case, analogous legal disputes were at issue in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018).

California was, and is, at the vanguard of LGBTQ civil rights movements. So was, and is, Allred and her firm, Allred, Maroko & Goldberg. “We did the right to marry case,” she said, “I did AIDS discrimination cases that we also won up in the California Court of Appeals” which ruled that “you can’t discriminate against someone” because of their HIV/AIDS status.

“We represented Robin Tyler and Diane Olson and Reverend Troy Perry and Phillip Ray De Blieck, his partner, the four of them in our right to marry case in California,” Allred said. “And we were the first in the state to challenge the family code law that essentially said that two people of the same sex could not marry. We challenged that. We went all the way to the California Supreme Court and we won.”

Here, too, Allred’s work crossed paths with Harris’s efforts in the public sector, aided by other allies like California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) who was, during this time, mayor of San Francisco.

“Because we were the first, Robin and Diane were the first, to be allowed to marry in LA County, a day before everyone else, we know that Newsom — actually, the same day that we announced we’re challenging the constitutionality of the law [he] started marrying gay and lesbian couples.”

The attorney — who in 2022 was awarded the highest honor of the LGBTQ+ Lawyers Association of Los Angeles — noted her and her firm’s ongoing work on behalf of transgender clients, which she considers “part of what we think should be always a teaching moment for what happens so that if people see the injustice and the unfairness, then they will join with us in wanting to right the wrongs.”

Allred highlighted another landmark case in the 1980s in which she represented “two lesbian life partners, wonderful women, businesswomen, very articulate” who were “not going to be in the closet” about their relationship when they celebrated Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday at Papa Choux, a fine dining establishment in Los Angeles.

“One was Latina, the other one was African American,” she said. “They were a couple, and they made a reservation for the romantic booths, which were like a few steps up from the main restaurant” with “sheer curtains, and violinists [who] came in to play” by the tables.

The couple was told that they were welcome to sit elsewhere but “two people of the same sex can’t sit in this romantic section” as a matter of restaurant policy and also per a city ordinance. “They weren’t kissing, they weren’t hugging, they weren’t even holding hands,” Allred said, and they did not want to move. As they would later say publicly, “‘we thought to ourselves, what would Martin Luther King Jr. want us to do? And we decided he would want us to call Gloria Allred.'”

“They came to us,” she said, and “we took the case. We had to decide, is this sexual orientation? Is it sex discrimination? Is it important? Or is it not important? Is it ridiculous? And then we decided, if you think that Rosa Parks sitting in the back of the bus was important, even though the bus would still get there, but she was treated in a way that was not respectful of her right to be treated in a dignified, respectful way, so this is the same thing.”

“So we fought at the lower court,” Allred said. “The trial court said, the judge said, ‘I want to go see the restaurant,’ which was not necessary. It’s a legal issue. But he did, and then he ruled against us, and we went up to the Court of Appeals, and we won, and they reversed, and we set a legal precedent that we’re able to cite in other cases and other attorneys were able to cite that you can’t discriminate against people because they’re lesbian or gay or of the same sex.”

That was 1984. “It’s still a legal precedent in California,” Allred added.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Congress passes ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ with massive cuts to health insurance coverage

Roughly 1.8 million LGBTQ Americans rely on Medicaid

Published

on

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The “Big, Beautiful Bill” heads to President Donald Trump’s desk following the vote by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday, which saw two nays from GOP members and unified opposition from the entire Democratic caucus.

To partially offset the cost of tax breaks that disproportionately favor the wealthy, the bill contains massive cuts to Medicaid and social safety net programs like food assistance for the poor while adding a projected $3.3 billion to the deficit.

Policy wise, the signature legislation of Trump’s second term rolls back clean energy tax credits passed under the Biden-Harris administration while beefing up funding for defense and border security.

Roughly 13 percent of LGBTQ adults in the U.S., about 1.8 million people, rely on Medicaid as their primary health insurer, compared to seven percent of non-LGBTQ adults, according to the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute think tank on sexual orientation and gender identities.

In total, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cuts will cause more than 10 million Americans to lose their coverage under Medicaid and anywhere from three to five million to lose their care under Affordable Care Act marketplace plans.

A number of Republicans in the House and Senate opposed the bill reasoning that they might face political consequences for taking away access to healthcare for, particularly, low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid. Poorer voters flocked to Trump in last year’s presidential election, exit polls show.

A provision that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation — reportedly after the first trans member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and the first lesbian U.S. senator, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), shored up unified opposition to the proposal among Congressional Democrats.

Continue Reading

Congress

Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor

One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”

Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.

Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.

To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.

A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).

Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”

Continue Reading

Congress

House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms

Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move

Published

on

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.

Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.

The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).

The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”

“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.

They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”

“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.

Continue Reading

Popular