National
Massa denies sexually groping male staffers
A New York lawmaker who resigned from Congress has been under investigation for allegedly
Former U.S. Rep. Eric Massa, shown here in an undated campaign photo, resigned from Congress amid reports that he’s under investigation for allegedly groping male staffers. (Photo courtesy of Massa for Congress)
A New York lawmaker who resigned from Congress has been under investigation for allegedly groping male staffers, according to a media report, raising questions about his sexual orientation.
Allegations that former Democratic Rep. Eric Massa, who resigned Tuesday, had sexually harassed a male staffer emerged last week, and the Washington Post reported this week that the House ethics committee has been investigating the first-term congressman for allegedly groping multiple men on his staff.
One source told the Post that the allegations surrounding the former lawmaker, whom DC Agenda couldn’t immediately reach for comment, have continued for at least one year and involve “a pattern of behavior and physical harassment.”
Last week, the House ethics committee acknowledged it was pursuing an investigation of Massa, although the focus of their efforts weren’t made public. The committee didn’t respond to multiple requests from DC Agenda to comment on the investigation.
According to the Post, Massa’s former deputy chief of staff, Ron Hikel, provided the information about the staffers’ allegations to the House ethics committee three weeks ago. Hikel had earlier consulted House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office about the complaints, the Post reported, and was urged to report the allegations to the committee.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, a gay conservative group, said the Post’s reporting that the allegations go back at least one year raises questions about how long House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leadership knew about this behavior without taking any action.
“We all know that there are very few secrets on Capitol Hill,” he said. “If this inappropriate behavior was going on for that long, then other members and the leadership surely knew about it.”
But in a recent press conference, Pelosi said she was first notified by her staff about the allegations surrounding Massa on March 3, according to a transcript of her remarks.
“I asked my staff, I said, have there been any rumors about any of this before?” she said. “There had been a rumor, but just that, no formal notification to our office that anything — a one, two, three person removed rumor that had been reported to Mr. Hoyer’s office that had been reported to my staff, which they didn’t report to me, because, you know what? This is rumor city. Every single day there are rumors. I have a job to do and not to be the receiver of rumors.”
LaSalvia compared the Massa situation to the outing of former Republican lawmaker Mark Foley in 2006. The revelation of Foley’s behavior in that election year symbolized the sense at the time that Republicans were out of control.
“Certainly there are allegations of inappropriate conduct with junior staffers and interns,” LaSalvia said. “That’s similar to what happened in 2006.”
But Lane Hudson, a gay D.C. activist known for his role in outing Foley, said the Massa situation doesn’t compare with the outing of the GOP lawmaker. He commended Democratic leadership for taking action.
“Anyone who compares Eric Massa to Mark Foley is trying to further their own personal or political agenda,” Hudson said. “Even if all of the allegations thus far are true, it is still no comparison. Democratic leadership did the proper thing, which was to refer it to the Ethics Committee for investigation. That’s a far cry from Republican leadership covering up Foley’s indiscretions for years.”
What kind of impact this news will have on the November elections remains to be seen. LaSalvia said the potential impact of the allegations would become more apparent as more information is revealed.
“The culture of corruption, I guess, is a cliché term that we hear about in Washington, and this is certainly an abuse of power by a Democrat,” he said. “There will be implications at the ballot box. Whether that spreads beyond his district in New York is yet to be determined.”
But Hudson discounted the impact this investigation would have on the November elections and said Democrats would find electoral victory if they enacted their campaign promises from 2008.
“If the Democratic majority is worried about the November elections, then they are best served by focusing on passing the agenda they were elected on,” he said.
In a Sunday interview on a New York radio station, Massa characterized his perception of the alleged sexual harassment and why he thinks the ethics committee is investigating him.
According to Roll Call, Massa said he believes the ethics inquiry is based on comments he made during a wedding for one of his staffers. The newspaper’s account noted that Massa attended the event with about 250 people, and made remarks after he danced with a bridesmaid and sat down at a table with several of his staffers.
“One of them looked at me and as they would do after — I don’t know, 15 gin and tonics, and goodness only knows how many bottles of champagne — a staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid and his points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that,” Massa was quoted as saying. “And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, ‘Well, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.’”
Massa said he then “tossled the guy’s hair” and left for his room because he thought “the party was getting to a point where it wasn’t right for me to be there.”
During the interview, Massa reportedly added the staff member to whom he made the comments never said he felt uncomfortable. The former lawmaker also suggested the real purpose of the inquiry was to remove him from the health care debate because of his vote against the House health care legislation last year.
But Democratic leadership has disputed that notion. In a press conference Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called Massa’s accusation “silly and ridiculous.”
“On Wednesday, he announced he would not seek reelection because of a health problem that he said was a recurrence of cancer; on Thursday, he said he wasn’t running because … of his use of salty language; on Friday, he seemed to take some responsibility for his actions at a different event,” Gibbs said. “I don’t know why I would give any weight to what he said on the fourth day any more than I would on the previous three days.”
In an appearance Tuesday on conservative commentator Glenn Beck’s Fox News program, Massa acknowledged he had touched a male staffer, but described it as “tickling” and said it wasn’t sexual behavior. The former lawmaker recalled tickling the staffer at a birthday party.
“Now they’re saying I groped a male staffer,” Massa said. “Yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn’t breathe and four guys jumped on top of me. It was my 50th birthday and it was kill the old guy.”
But when asked whether he sexually groped anyone, Massa replied, “No, no, no.”
“It doesn’t make any difference what my intentions were, it’s how it’s perceived by the individual who receives that action,” Massa said. “I’m telling you I was wrong. I was wrong. … My behavior was wrong. I should have never allowed myself to be as familiar with my staff as I was.”
Massa’s remarks and the information reported by the Washington Post raise the question of whether Massa, who’s married to a woman and has children, is gay or bisexual.
Mike Rogers, a D.C.-based blogger known for outing gay politicians, said he has no information on Massa’s sexual orientation.
“He was — when I met him in Chicago at [Netroots Nation] — very pro-gay,” Rogers said. “Running in a fairly conservative district, he supports axing [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’]”
Massa last year voted for the hate crimes bill. He was also a co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Military Readiness Enhancement Act.
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
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
Pride season has begun
