National
Pelosi vows to drop DOMA defense in Democratic House
Lawmaker says ENDA will be legislative priority
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Blade photo by Michael Key)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed to drop congressional defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court if Democrats retake control of the House in November.
Pelosi made the remarks Wednesday in an interview with the Washington Blade on Capitol Hill. When asked what could be expected on LGBT issues if Democrats regain control in the 113th Congress, she talked DOMA.
“First of all, we can expect something to go away, like stop spending taxpayer dollars on the Defense of Marriage of Act, which is a waste of money and not the right thing to do,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi had previously criticized House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for taking on defense of DOMA after the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend the anti-gay law and has called on House Republicans to discontinue that effort, but never before pledged to drop defense of DOMA if Democrats resumed control of the House.
She said she thinks Republicans believe DOMA is unconstitutional because when they controlled the House under the Bush administration, they tried to pass court-stripping provisions denying judicial review for the anti-gay law and others.
“They had to know that there was a weakness constitutionally in that bill, if they would want to put court-stripping provisions in relating to DOMA and the rest,” Pelosi said. “So, we think they know it’s weak constitutionally.”
Pelosi made the pledge to discontinue congressional defense of DOMA just hours after the U.S. District Court of the Southern District struck down the law in the case of Windsor v. United States, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones, who became the fifth federal judge to rule against DOMA, ordered that plaintiff Edith Windsor be repaid the $353,053 plus interest and costs allowed by law that she paid out in estate taxes because of DOMA upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer.
Among other LGBT initiatives on which Pelosi pledged action if Democrats win back the House was the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar job discrimination against LGBT people in most situations in the public and private workforce.
“We were on path on ENDA, and I’m still on that path mentally, and that’s what I would like to accomplish,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi also mentioned immigration legislation affecting the LGBT community, alluding to the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign-born same-sex partners for residency in the United States. She said the bill would “seriously codify immigration policy relating to the [LGBT] community.”
Pelosi was cautious about predicting that Democrats would win the 25 seats necessary to regain control of the House, saying there’s a “50-50” chance, nor would she presume that she would once again be elected speaker in that scenario.
“One thing at a time,” Pelosi said. “Let’s win the House first.”
Pelosi also wouldn’t rule out more progress on LGBT issues under the current makeup of Congress. She said conferees working on the Violence Against Women Act may adopt LGBT-inclusive language because the Democratic-controlled Senate wouldn’t pass a bill without it.
“It’s supposed to go to conference,” Pelosi said. “I don’t think the Senate will pass a bill without those protections, and we certainly won’t support it in the House.”
Pelosi maintained the lack of LGBT language ensuring non-discrimination in shelters and inclusion in grant programs — which is found in the version of the bill passed by the Senate — was among the reasons Democrats voted against the House bill.
“How can you say you don’t approve of violence against women except if you happen to be lesbian or bisexual or transgender?” Pelosi said. “Those are the people who need it the most, you know? And so, but it’s not only the [LGBT] community, it’s also Native Americans and immigrants who are excluded from protections in the House bill.”
Pelosi said Republican lawmakers have confided to her they want to push their caucus to support more inclusive language in the conference report even as many voted for the less inclusive House version of the bill because they didn’t want to seem like they favored violence against women.
“If they’re from places with lots of Native Americans and/or lots of LGBT [people] — there are people who vote with their experience, and their constituents, so I think they will be feeling some pressures to support the Senate bill,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi also commented on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision earlier this week not to rehear a case challenging California’s Proposition 8 after a three-judge panel initially struck down the law.
She deferred to others when asked whether the case should move to the Supreme Court, where justices could rule on same-sex marriage bans throughout the country.
“There are better skilled legal minds on this subject,” Pelosi said. “What I want it to do is end up at a place where we really make a difference in people’s lives, and some of the court decisions have deferred to the Supreme Court acting, so that may be what it takes, but again I’m waiting to hear from those who are in the community who are looking at the consequences.”
Pelosi spoke to the Blade after remarks she gave at a reception for Hill staffers called “LGBT Pride on the Hill,” which, in addition to celebrating June as Pride month, honored Pelosi for her 25 years of service on Capitol Hill.
Prior to her remarks, Pelosi was given a rainbow-studded gavel by her deputy director of scheduling, Timothy Merritt, who’s gay. Merritt was appointed to the job in April 2011, but is leaving for Chicago to pursue a job with the Obama campaign.
Additionally, Pelosi commented on Wednesday’s news that one of the daughters of House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Stefany Hoyer Hemmer, has publicly come out as a lesbian in hopes of preserving the marriage equality law in Maryland. Pelosi said she read the Blade article that broke the story.
“I was very happy with her,” Pelosi said. “I know it must have brought her some peace, too. It’s liberating to make a decision. I don’t want to speak for anybody else, but God bless her for her decision, and God bless her for the work that she is setting out to do.”
Pelosi said she hasn’t spoken with Hoyer about her daughter’s decision to come out as a lesbian, but plans to bring it up with him.
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Blade Summer Kickoff Party returns to Rehoboth
Andy Cohen coming to D.C.
Want to dance for a good cause?
Calendar: May 3-9
Brittney Griner considered suicide in Russian prison
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Pride season has begun
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
