National
Lesbian who fought workplace discrimination ‘honored’ to attend SOTU
Kilker to join handful of guests in first lady’s box
Lorelei Kilker (left) with her partner Sara Nelson (photo courtesy Kilker)
The invitation to witness the State of the Union address on Tuesday alongside first lady Michelle Obama came as a surprise to a lesbian analytical chemist who last year fought alleged workplace sex discrimination.
In an interview with the Washington Blade, Lorelei Kilker, 31, of Brighton, Colo., said she learned she was invited to attend the speech upon receiving a call from a White House official on Sunday.
“It was a Sunday and the middle of the day,” she said with a laugh. “They left a message on my phone from someone who said, ‘This is the White House.’ I was very shocked. I didn’t think that anything like this would happen. I was honored and shocked.”
One of a handful of guests that have been selected to sit in the first lady’s box in the House gallery, Kilker will watch President Obama deliver his speech at 9 p.m. before a joint session of Congress.
Kilker described the feeling of being able to sit next to first lady Michelle Obama to watch the president as he gives his speech as “overwhelming.”
“You see the president and you see the first lady on TV,” Kilker said. “You recognize them, but I never in a million years would have thought I would have the opportunity to see them in person. It’s pretty great.”
Kilker said she’ll be traveling to D.C. with her partner of three-and-a-half years, Sarah Nelson, who’s 33 and works at Dick’s Sporting Goods. They have two children, ages four and seven. However, Kilker will be attending the speech on her own.
The message that Kilker hopes to hear from President Obama on Tuesday night: “getting America back together, becoming united.”
Asked whether she’d like to hear something from Obama on LGBT issues, such as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, Kilker replied, “I think that that’s important. There have been steps, but we need something stronger.”
What would Kilker want to say to Michelle Obama if they have an opportunity to chat? Kilker said she’d commend the first lady for being an admirable person.
“The only thing I would say to her is that I think she’s a positive and strong female role model, and the Obama administration has done a lot for civil rights as opposed to other administrations,” Kilker said.
Kilker was invited to attend the State of the Union address after she received monetary relief in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case that investigated alleged sex discrimination she faced at while employed at the Western Sugar Cooperative.
According to an EEOC statement from when the case was resolved in October, EEOC found Western Sugar denied women training and promotions, gave them less desirable work assignments and segregated positions by gender at its Ft. Morgan, Colo., facility. Additionally, the company allegedly denied year-round employment and paid lower wages to women.
Western Sugar has denied any wrongdoing and maintains it’s an equal opportunity employer, but agreed to resolve the matter through EEOC’s reconciliation process.
But Kilker contends that women “had certain jobs they were allowed to have, and there were certain jobs that they were not allowed to have.”
“The jobs that women had were mediocre, they paid less,” Kilker said. “There was really no opportunity for advancement. The male jobs were higher-wage, promotions, things like that.”
When she tried to enter one of these “male jobs,” Kilker said she was repeatedly denied the opportunity despite her record.
“The management would come up to me and promise me that they were going to do this, they were going to do this,” Kilker said. “Then, they would go back and say, ‘No we’re not going to do this. No we’re not going to this. We changed our mind.”
Additionally, Kilker said management at the company singled her out for sexual harassment that made her “working life miserable” until she eventually quit her job.
“My family received phone calls saying that I was doing sexual activities in order to do jobs, and things like that,” Kilker said. “It got pretty disgusting.”
Kilker said the discrimination she faced was the result of her gender and not her sexual orientation. She said she doesn’t believe her former employer knew she was a lesbian.
On the grounds that the alleged discrimination was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Kilker filed charges on behalf of herself and other women at the company.
As a result of arrangements that were achieved through a cooperative process between the employer and EEOC, Kilker and others involved in the class-action case received $550,000 in relief. Further, Western Sugar agreed to remedial relief such as training for all employees and appointed an internal representative who’ll report to the EEOC to monitor the company’s employment practices for the next three years.
Kilker said she received “the majority share” of the $550,000, although she couldn’t recall the exact portion of that amount she received.
“I was so happy,” Kilker. “It had taken so many years that I just had kind of gotten to the point where I was over it. And then, the investigator at the EEOC really got into it, and it was just amazing how far they came with that.”
According to the White House, EEOC has obtained almost $50 million in monetary relief through administrative enforcement for victims of sex-based wage discrimination since the creation of the President’s Equal Pay Task Force in January 2010. Additionally, EEOC obtained changes to workplace practices that benefit more than 250,000 workers, and filed five cases including sex-based wage discrimination claims.
Although EEOC was able to resolve the issue, Kilker said more advancements are necessary to protect workers against discrimination.
Kilker said she supports the idea of Obama taking action administratively to bar discrimination in the workplace. Some LGBT rights advocates have urged the president to issue an executive order preventing federal dollars from going to companies without LGBT-inclusive workplace non-discrimination protections.
“I think that’s a great idea,” Kilker said. “It’s just another step in the right direction, and that’s what we need.”
But Kilker won’t be the only LGBT person attending the State of the Union. The other lesbian invitee is Air Force Col. Ginger Wallace, who’s 43 and lives in McLean, Va. She’s currently training to deploy to Afghanistan in the spring through the Afghanistan-Pakistan Hands program.
The Washington Blade reported in December on Wallace’s partner Kathy Knopf participating in her “pinning-on” promotion ceremony, the first reported instance of such an event happening with a same-sex partner since the lifting of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
On Tuesday, Wallace told the Blade that she and her partner are “honored and humbled” to represent LGBT people and families who’ve served in the armed forces.
“We’re just amazed that we were chosen to do that,” Wallace said. “We’re just humbled to represent this unique section of people. There are really are a lot of exceptional gays and lesbians who serve in our military.”
If she has an opportunity to speak with Michelle Obama, Wallace said she’d thank the first lady — as well as second lady Jill Biden — for their work leading the national campaign called “Joining Forces,” which was launched in April to support military families through public service outreach and partnerships.
“They have worked tirelessly to increase support for military families, ensure that military families are taken care of,” Wallace said. “That’s important work, especially today. After 10 years of conflict, 10 years of deployment — that’s taken its toll.”
Wallace said she hopes Obama during his speech will the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as one of the accomplishments of his administration.
“I hope it is highlighted as a success, and I think, more importantly, I hope it is received by the audience as a success,” Wallace said. “I hope this is seen as the success I think the administration thinks it is.”
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Queer American in Israel discusses Iran war’s impact
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
Russian neocolonial politics promote anti-LGBTQ imperialistic values
Man charged with carjacking, kidnapping after having sex in D.C. park pleads guilty
Protecting D.C.’s promise: why Kenyan McDuffie deserves our support
The very few queer highlights of the Oscars
-
The White House5 days agoKennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
-
Russia5 days ago
Russian neocolonial politics promote anti-LGBTQ imperialistic values
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Man charged with carjacking, kidnapping after having sex in D.C. park pleads guilty
-
Opinions5 days ago
Protecting D.C.’s promise: why Kenyan McDuffie deserves our support
