National
Hollywood comes to Capitol Hill to push for Social Security bill
Legislation would allow gay couples to access benefits
Hal Sparks speaking at the Social Security equality press conference (Blade photo by Michael Key)
A Los Angeles congresswoman beamed in support from Hollywood on Thursday to spread the word about legislation she introduced in the U.S. House to end inequities that same-sex couples face in the Social Security system.
During a news conference on Capitol Hill, Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) said her legislation, the Social Security Equality Act, would allow gay families to gain access to the same survivor and pension benefits available to opposite-sex couples.
“The gay and lesbian population will not be told by their government that they are second-class citizens,” Sánchez said. “Same-sex couples pay into Social Security — they should receive the full benefits they have earned.”
Sánchez’s bill, H.R. 4609, would eliminate the Social Security Administration policy denying same-sex couples benefits. According to Sánchez, gay male couples receive 18 percent less in Social Security benefits than straight couples, while lesbian couples receive 31 percent less because women statistically earn less money.
Four types of Social Security benefits are denied to same-sex couples: spousal retirement benefits after one spouse retires; disability benefits if one spouse becomes disabled; survivor’s benefits, which allow surviving spouses to claim either their own Social Security benefit or an amount equal to the compensation that would have been afforded to their deceased spouse; and the death benefit, which provides for burial expenses.
The legislation, which was previously introduced in 2010, has 95 co-sponsors: all Democrats. The four openly gay members of Congress — Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) — have all signed on in support.
Celebrities appeared at the news conference to advocate for the legislation alongside the lawmakers and LGBT advocates. Supporters carried signs reading “Outlaw Social Security Discrimination” and “Stop Economic Violence Against LGBT Seniors.” One sign was a mock Social Security card with “same-sex couples” written in the line allotted for a name.
George Takei (left) and his spouse Brad Altman (Blade photo by Michael Key)
George Takei, famed for his role as “Mr. Sulu” in the “Star Trek” series, appeared with his spouse, Brad Altman, and decried the hardship that same-sex couples face because of inequities in the Social Security system as “unfair and unjust.”
“There are same-sex couples who are denied equality often when misfortune befalls same-sex couples,” Takei said. “One falls ill, or tragically one might pass away. A survivor is left not only grieving, but financially insecure — and often the home they’ve built together, shared together is lost.”
Hal Sparks, known for his role as “Michael” in Showtime’s “Queer as Folk,” also spoke out against the current system for putting LGBT seniors in a position that is “not only emotionally difficult, but financially or physically dangerous.”
“It is odd for me, at this very moment, that as the law stands, I have rights that many of the people who are standing behind me, to my right and my left, do not have,” Sparks said. “If the law is not changed, they are headed toward a future that is more limited, more fractured and, quite frankly, more dangerous than mine.”
Another speaker at the event felt the discrimination under the current Social Security system firsthand. Alice Herman, from Los Angeles, a spokesperson for the grassroots group “Rock for Equality,” talked about the difficulties she faced after losing Sylvia, her partner of 45 years.
Even though both had paid into Social Security for more than 50 years, Herman at the age of 73 wasn’t able to receive survivor benefits following the death of her partner, who had a greater income. While Herman was a social worker, her partner worked in business and climbed the corporate ladder.
“When she died, much to my amazement, Social Security denied me the death benefit, then Social Security refused to provide me with the survivor’s benefit,” Herman said. “These denials came even though we were legally married. They dismissed our 45 together, our 45 years of love and commitment, our 45 years of contributing to society as meaningless.”
Had she been able to receive these benefits, Herman said she would have been able to stay in her home. However, she was forced to find another place to live because the only other option would be living in her car.
LGBT advocates also railed against the Social Security system for not providing gay couples the same benefits as others.
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center CEO Lorri Jean (right) and Linda Sanchez (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Lorri Jean, CEO of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, said same-sex couples pay into Social Security with every paycheck, but are unable to reap the full benefits of the system.
“Every single month, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center provides programs and services to thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender seniors,” Jean said. “Too many come because they have been denied Social Security benefits.”
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, commended Sanchez for introducing the legislation and emphasized Social Security’s effectiveness at being “one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in the nation’s history.”
“The Social Security Equality Act begins to give same-sex couples the dignity they deserve and the financial security they desperately need,” Carey said. “In a time of flat income for most Americans and disappearing pensions, it is absolutely vital for the government to protect our most vulnerable.”
Michael Adams, executive director of Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders, or SAGE, also stressed the need for the bill as a way to help LGBT elders.
“Whether it’s our LGBT community or our community as a whole, our elders are our pioneers,” Adams said. “They are the people who led the way for us, and the fact that in 2012, we are still having this argument over whether LGBT elders would be treated with dignity and respect and tolerance is outrageous.”
Adams said most seniors rely on Social Security for at least half of their retirement income, and LGBT elders need Social Security even more because they’re more likely to be living in poverty than opposite-sex couples. Additionally, Adams said LGBT elders are more likely to live single in their old age, and one-third of single elders rely on Social Security for their entire retirement income.
Despite the push by advocates, movement in the Republican-controlled House is unlikely. Nonetheless, Sánchez said she’s hopeful the legislation will receive a hearing in the House Ways & Means Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the bill.
Sánchez said she hasn’t had the opportunity to have a conversation with Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) about the bill because it has just been introduced, but said “that conversation will be taking place in the near future.” The Ways & Means Committee didn’t respond to a request for comment on the measure.
The legislation is being introduced relatively late in the 112th Congress compared to other LGBT bills, which were introduced at the start of last year. Sánchez said the bill was being introduced at this time because “there were certain legislative nuances to the bill that we had to work out.”
Advocates at the news conference also said talks were underway about a Senate companion, although no one would identify any potential Senate sponsors or give an estimate on when the legislation would be introduced.
It’s unclear whether the bill would be necessary if the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex couples, were overturned, or if further revision would be needed after DOMA is lifted to ensure same-sex couples are eligible for Social Security benefits.
Sánchez said she wants to push for DOMA repeal as she advocates for the Social Security Equality Act.
“Ultimately, DOMA is an issue that we have to deal with, and the preferable route would be to repeal DOMA,” Sánchez said. “But this is one step we can make on the path to making that happen and we’re hoping that if we get the support that we need and the grassroots to have this legislation pass — because it’s such a clear case of economic discrimination — then that undermines the arguments in DOMA.”
Jean talked about the need to overturn DOMA at the same time she pushed for passage of the new legislation.
“Of course, we still need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure that same-sex couples are given all of the rights that are straight brothers and sisters enjoy,” Jean said. “But until that day, the Social Security Equality Act will make a crucial difference to countless elderly people.”
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’
A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
No olvidar el 11 de mayo
Blade names Delaware journalism fellowship recipient
Impact of federal gov’t RIF on D.C.’s rental market
A trip ‘through media, memory to examine cultural imperialism’
My chance encounter with a pope and why goodness still matters
American cardinal chosen as next pope
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
Gideon Glick steals the show in Amazon Prime’s ‘Étoile’
Council must approve new Commanders stadium deal
