National
Has the gay agenda been shelved?
Further action on LGBT bills looking less likely this Congress
On the long-stalled Employment Non-Discrimination Act, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said ‘we’re still trying to figure out a way to get that done.’ (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
The limited time remaining in the legislative calendar for this Congress is raising questions about whether lawmakers will pass any further pro-LGBT bills before year’s end — and whether it will be politically feasible to pass such bills next year.
Congress advanced LGBT-related legislation last year when it passed hate crimes protections. This year, a measure that would lead to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” seems likely to reach President Obama’s desk.
Still, some LGBT activists and voters are frustrated that Congress has taken no action to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Supporters of the legislation have said several times a vote was imminent, but no such action has yet been taken.
Other pending measures include the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, which would allow LGBT federal workers to receive spousal benefits for their same-sex partners, as well as the Uniting American Families Act and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Further complicating the situation is the specter of reduced Democratic majorities in the next Congress — or even a Republican takeover — and whether measures unaddressed this year would be viable in 2011.
Despite the limited time remaining this year, some LGBT rights supporters are hopeful that Congress will move forward with additional legislation. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a gay lawmaker and House sponsor of ENDA, expressed optimism about the bill passing the House this year.
“That’s going to be next thing we’ll turn our attention to,” Frank said. “We have the speaker’s support and we’re still trying to figure out a way to get that done.”
The scheduling for a House vote on ENDA remains an issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier told the Blade that a House vote on ENDA wouldn’t occur until Congress finishes legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said ENDA remains “a top priority for the speaker,” but a vote on the bill before work on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is complete “jeopardizes both initiatives.”
“Until then, we should encourage the Senate to develop a course for ENDA to ensure that when the House passes the legislation, the Senate can move quickly to send the legislation to the president’s desk,” Hammill said.
Frank said efforts toward repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” displaced ENDA in the batting order for Congress because the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill came to lawmakers before a vote could happen on ENDA.
“If the defense authorization hadn’t come up earlier, we might have been able to do ENDA first,” he said.
Frank noted that he thinks the votes exist in the House to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA, but he wouldn’t give a timetable for when the legislation would move forward in Congress because he didn’t want to tip off opponents of the bill.
Michael Cole, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, said a House vote on ENDA is among the pro-LGBT items his organization has pressed for in the time remaining in this year’s legislative calendar.
“We’re certainly interested in seeing the House take a vote on ENDA,” Cole said. “We’ve been advocating for that for a long time, and as recess comes, we’ll be doing a lot of work to make sure our members are getting in touch with members of Congress to push for a vote on it.”
But if the House manages to pass ENDA this year, getting the legislation through the Senate remains a significant challenge. Sources have said 60 votes are lacking in the Senate to overcome a filibuster on the legislation. Also, because the Senate allows non-germane amendments, opponents of the bill could attach additional measures in an attempt to block its passage.
Still, Frank said he believes passage of ENDA in the Senate remains a possibility.
“If you ask them if they think they can pass it, they’ll say ‘no,’ so the important thing to do is for us [in the House] to try [to] pass it and send it over there, so they can’t just avoid it,” Frank said.
Activists also foresee a possibility of passing the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act before year’s end.
Cole said the legislation, as well as the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, which would eliminate the tax penalty paid on employer-provided health insurance for domestic partners, could be made part of upcoming omnibus authorization or appropriations bills.
“We’re following what the plans appear to be on the Hill to see how we might be able to get those pieces of legislation [advanced] as part of them,” Cole said.
Frank also acknowledged the possibility of passing the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act and said that legislation is “in serious conversation.”
Still, Frank noted the bill comes with a price tag — estimated at one time by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to be $56 million a year — and that concerns associated with raising the federal deficit may cause problems in passing the bill.
Frank said finding a way to offset the legislation’s cost remains an issue for the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act and “we have to find a way to pay for that.”
Whatever progress this Congress makes on passing pro-LGBT bills, recent polls are casting doubts on whether enough Democratic lawmakers will retain their seats next Congress to pass such bills.
Several recent polls have shown considerable opposition toward Democrats and the Obama administration as persistent unemployment and concerns about government spending linger across the country.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gained media attention and inspired consternation among Democratic House members when, during an appearance earlier this month on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he said Republicans could regain control of the House.
“I think people are going to have a choice to make in the fall,” Gibbs said. “But I think there’s no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There’s no doubt about that.”
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, is projecting that Republicans will win seven seats in the Senate and 32 seats in House after the election.
Because of this potential shift, Sabato said passage of more pro-LGBT bills next Congress is unlikely if it doesn’t happen this year.
“If these pieces of legislation don’t pass now, when both houses have swollen Democratic majorities, they certainly aren’t going to pass in the next Congress, when Democrats will have narrow majorities, or even be in the minority,” Sabato said.
Sabato said the loss of a half-dozen Democratic seats in the Senate could be enough to “kill these bills” entirely in the next Congress because proponents wouldn’t be able to find 60 votes to thwart a filibuster.
But Frank said the possibility of passing more pro-LGBT legislation in a future Congress is unknown because the fallout of the November elections is yet to be seen.
“I don’t think there’s any question there will be Republican gains in both chambers,” he said. “But what kind of gains? How much? Three senators? Eight senators? Fifteen representatives? Thirty-five representatives?”
Frank also said some members of Congress that would lose in the upcoming election wouldn’t “be supportive of ENDA anyway.”
Additionally, he said Congress could more easily take up other pro-LGBT bills in the future after items like hate crimes and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are off the table.
“To some extent, the more you have to work on, the harder it is to do any one of them,” he said.
Cole said although no one knows what the future holds for support for pro-LGBT legislation after year’s end, he noted several supportive incumbents are in danger of losing their seats.
“The thing to keep in mind, though, is cobbling together a pro-LGBT majority for any piece of legislation has never been a slam dunk,” Cole said. “It’s not necessarily about party affiliation — it’s about people who have taken stances toward equality measures.”
Florida
DNC slams White House for slashing Fla. AIDS funding
Following the”Big Beautiful Bill” tax credit cuts, Florida will have to cut life saving medication for over 16,000 Floridians.
The Trump-Vance administration and congressional Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill” could strip more than 10,000 Floridians of life-saving HIV medication.
The Florida Department of Health announced there would be large cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program in the Sunshine State. The program switched from covering those making up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, which was anyone making $62,600 or less, in 2025, to only covering those making up to 130 percent of the FPL, or $20,345 a year in 2026.
Cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, which provides medication to low-income people living with HIV/AIDS, will prevent a dramatic $120 million funding shortfall as a result of the Big Beautiful Bill according to the Florida Department of Health.
The International Association of Providers of AIDS Care and Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo warned that the situation could easily become a “crisis” without changing the current funding setup.
“It is a serious issue,” Ladapo told the Tampa Bay Times. “It’s a really, really serious issue.”
The Florida Department of Health currently has a “UPDATES TO ADAP” warning on the state’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program webpage, recommending Floridians who once relied on tax credits and subsidies to pay for their costly HIV/AIDS medication to find other avenues to get the crucial medications — including through linking addresses of Florida Association of Community Health Centers and listing Florida Non-Profit HIV/AIDS Organizations rather than have the government pay for it.
HIV disproportionately impacts low income people, people of color, and LGBTQ people
The Tampa Bay Times first published this story on Thursday, which began gaining attention in the Sunshine State, eventually leading the Democratic Party to, once again, condemn the Big Beautiful Bill pushed by congressional republicans.
“Cruelty is a feature and not a bug of the Trump administration. In the latest attack on the LGBTQ+ community, Donald Trump and Florida Republicans are ripping away life-saving HIV medication from over 10,000 Floridians because they refuse to extend enhanced ACA tax credits,” Democratic National Committee spokesperson Albert Fujii told the Washington Blade. “While Donald Trump and his allies continue to make clear that they don’t give a damn about millions of Americans and our community, Democrats will keep fighting to protect health care for LGBTQ+ Americans across the country.”
More than 4.7 million people in Florida receive health insurance through the federal marketplace, according to KKF, an independent source for health policy research and polling. That is the largest amount of people in any state to be receiving federal health care — despite it only being the third most populous state.
Florida also has one of the largest shares of people who use the AIDS Drug Assistance Program who are on the federal marketplace: about 31 percent as of 2023, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
“I can’t understand why there’s been no transparency,” David Poole also told the Times, who oversaw Florida’s AIDS program from 1993 to 2005. “There is something seriously wrong.”
The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors estimates that more than 16,000 people will lose coverage
U.S. Supreme Court
Competing rallies draw hundreds to Supreme Court
Activists, politicians gather during oral arguments over trans youth participation in sports
Hundreds of supporters and opponents of trans rights gathered outside of the United States Supreme Court during oral arguments for Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. on Tuesday. Two competing rallies were held next to each other, with politicians and opposing movement leaders at each.
“Trans rights are human rights!” proclaimed U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to the crowd of LGBTQ rights supporters. “I am here today because trans kids deserve more than to be debated on cable news. They deserve joy. They deserve support. They deserve to grow up knowing that their country has their back.”
“And I am here today because we have been down this hateful road before,” Markey continued. “We have seen time and time again what happens when the courts are asked to uphold discrimination. History eventually corrects those mistakes, but only after the real harm is done to human beings.”
View on Threads
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke at the other podium set up a few feet away surrounded by signs, “Two Sexes. One Truth.” and “Reality Matters. Biology Matters.”
“In just four years, the Biden administration reversed decades of progress,” said McMahon. “twisting the law to urge that sex is not defined by objective biological reality, but by subjective notion of gender identity. We’ve seen the consequences of the Biden administration’s advocacy of transgender agendas.”
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, was introduced on the opposing podium during McMahon’s remarks.
“This court, whose building that we stand before this morning, did something quite remarkable six years ago.” Takano said. “It did the humanely decent thing, and legally correct thing. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court said that trans employees exist. It said that trans employees matter. It said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sex, and that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It recognizes that trans people have workplace rights and that their livelihoods cannot be denied to them, because of who they are as trans people.”
“Today, we ask this court to be consistent,” Takano continued. “If trans employees exist, surely trans teenagers exist. If trans teenagers exist, surely trans children exist. If trans employees have a right not to be discriminated against in the workplace, trans kids have a right to a free and equal education in school.”
Takano then turned and pointed his finger toward McMahon.
“Did you hear that, Secretary McMahon?” Takano addressed McMahon. “Trans kids have a right to a free and equal education! Restore the Office of Civil Rights! Did you hear me Secretary McMahon? You will not speak louder or speak over me or over these people.”
Both politicians continued their remarks from opposing podiums.
“I end with a message to trans youth who need to know that there are adults who reject the political weaponization of hate and bigotry,” Takano said. “To you, I say: you matter. You are not alone. Discrimination has no place in our schools. It has no place in our laws, and it has no place in America.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Justices considered whether laws unconstitutional under Title IX.
The Supreme Court heard two cases today that could change how the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX are enforced.
The cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., ask the court to determine whether state laws blocking transgender girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Once decided, the rulings could reshape how laws addressing sex discrimination are interpreted nationwide.
Chief Justice John Roberts raised questions about whether Bostock v. Clayton County — the landmark case holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity — applies in the context of athletics. He questioned whether transgender girls should be considered girls under the law, noting that they were assigned male at birth.
“I think the basic focus of the discussion up until now, which is, as I see it anyway, whether or not we should view your position as a challenge to the distinction between boys and girls on the basis of sex or whether or not you are perfectly comfortable with the distinction between boys and girls, you just want an exception to the biological definition of girls.”
“How we approach the situation of looking at it not as boys versus girls but whether or not there should be an exception with respect to the definition of girls,” Roberts added, suggesting the implications could extend beyond athletics. “That would — if we adopted that, that would have to apply across the board and not simply to the area of athletics.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed Roberts’ concerns, questioning how sex-based classifications function under Title IX and what would happen if Idaho’s ban were struck down.
“Does a — the justification for a classification as you have in Title IX, male/female sports, let’s take, for example, an individual male who is not a good athlete, say, a lousy tennis player, and does not make the women’s — and wants to try out for the women’s tennis team, and he said there is no way I’m better than the women’s tennis players. How is that different from what you’re being required to do here?”
Justice Samuel Alito addressed what many in the courtroom seemed reluctant to state directly: the legal definition of sex.
“Under Title IX, what does the term ‘sex’ mean?” Alito asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, who was arguing in support of Idaho’s law. Mooppan maintained that sex should be defined at birth.
“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex and think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan said.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, questioning how that definition did not amount to sex discrimination against Lindsay Hecox under Idaho law. If Hecox’s sex is legally defined as male, Sotomayor argued, the exclusion still creates discrimination.
“It’s still an exception,” Sotomayor said. “It’s a subclass of people who are covered by the law and others are not.”
Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the broader implications of the cases, asking whether a ruling for the states would impose a single definition of sex on the 23 states that currently have different laws and standards. The parties acknowledged that scientific research does not yet offer a clear consensus on sex.
“I think the one thing we definitely want to have is complete findings. So that’s why we really were urging to have a full record developed before there were a final judgment of scientific uncertainty,” said Kathleen Harnett, Hecox’s legal representative. “Maybe on a later record, that would come out differently — but I don’t think that—”
“Just play it out a little bit, if there were scientific uncertainty,” Kagan responded.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on the impact such policies could have on cisgender girls, arguing that allowing transgender girls to compete could undermine Title IX’s original purpose.
“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league, there’s a — there’s a harm there,” Kavanaugh said. “I think we can’t sweep that aside.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Idaho’s law discriminated based on transgender status or sex.
“Since trans boys can play on boys’ teams, how would we say this discriminates on the basis of transgender status when its effect really only runs towards trans girls and not trans boys?”
Harnett responded, “I think that might be relevant to a, for example, animus point, right, that we’re not a complete exclusion of transgender people. There was an exclusion of transgender women.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged the notion that explicitly excluding transgender people was not discrimination.
“I guess I’m struggling to understand how you can say that this law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of transgender status. The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams… it treats transgender women different than — than cis-women, doesn’t it?”
Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst urged the court to uphold his state’s ban, arguing that allowing participation based on gender identity — regardless of medical intervention — would deny opportunities to girls protected under federal law.
Hurst emphasized that biological “sex is what matters in sports,” not gender identity, citing scientific evidence that people assigned male at birth are predisposed to athletic advantages.
Joshua Block, representing B.P.J., was asked whether a ruling in their favor would redefine sex under federal law.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,” Block said. “I think the purpose is to make sure sex isn’t being used to deny opportunities.”
Becky Pepper-Jackson, identified as plaintiff B.P.J., the 15-year-old also spoke out.
“I play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do — to make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,” said Pepper-Jackson. “And all I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers. But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me — the only transgender student athlete in the entire state — from playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves.”
Outside the court, advocates echoed those concerns as the justices deliberated.
“Becky simply wants to be with her teammates on the track and field team, to experience the camaraderie and many documented benefits of participating in team sports,” said Sasha Buchert, counsel and Nonbinary & Transgender Rights Project director at Lambda Legal. “It has been amply proven that participating in team sports equips youth with a myriad of skills — in leadership, teamwork, confidence, and health. On the other hand, denying a student the ability to participate is not only discriminatory but harmful to a student’s self-esteem, sending a message that they are not good enough and deserve to be excluded. That is the argument we made today and that we hope resonated with the justices of the Supreme Court.”
“This case is about the ability of transgender youth like Becky to participate in our schools and communities,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “School athletics are fundamentally educational programs, but West Virginia’s law completely excluded Becky from her school’s entire athletic program even when there is no connection to alleged concerns about fairness or safety. As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boys’ team — in contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life — is really no choice at all. We are glad to stand with her and her family to defend her rights, and the rights of every young person, to be included as a member of their school community, at the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings in both cases by the end of June.
DNC slams White House for slashing Fla. AIDS funding
Do not forget that Renee Good was queer
Gay Venezuelan opposition leader: Country’s future uncertain after Maduro ouster
Layoffs and confusion at Pride Center of Maryland after federal grants cut, reinstated
Comings & Goings
Supreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
Mark Levine running in ‘firehouse’ Democratic primary to succeed Adam Ebbin
Teyana Taylor, Erin Doherty have big night at Golden Globes
Team Rayceen’s hiatus is officially over
HRC holds retirement ceremony for ousted transgender servicemembers
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court hears arguments in two critical cases on trans sports bans
-
Virginia5 days ago
Mark Levine running in ‘firehouse’ Democratic primary to succeed Adam Ebbin
-
Arts & Entertainment5 days ago
Teyana Taylor, Erin Doherty have big night at Golden Globes
-
Opinions5 days ago
Team Rayceen’s hiatus is officially over
