News
Susan Collins lambasted by LGBT groups for Kavanaugh support
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) declared her Brett Kavanaugh support in a Senate floor speech. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement “we are deeply disappointed in Sen. Collins today” after her speech on the Senate floor affirming support for Kavanaugh.
“In one of the most consequential vote of her lifetime — and of her constituents’ lifetimes — she has opted to back a dangerous, unqualified nominee who repeatedly lied under oath and has multiple credible allegations of sexual assault,” Griffin said. “The harmful consequences of Sen. Collins’ decision to support Brett Kavanaugh will last decades.”
With Collins’ support, Kavanaugh has the necessary votes for confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), another undecided senator, declared he’d vote for Kavanaugh shortly after Collins’ speech.
Griffin urged voters to demonstrate their anger with Collins by taking to the polls in the congressional mid-term elections and voting out senators who support Kavanaugh.
“In the wake of this news, there is only one course of action,” Griffin said. “The millions of Americans who have fought a valiant struggle against this despicable nominee must make their voices heard in November and beyond by electing lawmakers who will stand up for our rights rather than sell us out.”
In years past, the Human Rights Campaign has endorsed Collins when she was up for re-election and faced Democratic challengers because of her support for LGBT rights initiatives, including “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It’s hard to see how that support will continue in the Kavanaugh vote.
Collins declared in a floor speech she “will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh” hours after she was among the 51 senators to vote for cloture to allow the Senate to move forward with the nomination.
In response to Christine Blasey Ford’s Senate testimony asserting a 17-year-old Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982 when she was a teenager, Collins said the accusation isn’t enough to preclude the nominee from sitting on the Supreme Court.
“Fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet the threshold of ‘more likely than not’ as our standard,” Collins said. “The facts presented do not mean the Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the ‘more likely than not’ standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.”
Amid concerns Kavanaugh would vote to reverse the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court for marriage equality, Collins said Kavanaugh indicated he wouldn’t overturn the decision in his confirmation hearing. (LGBT legal experts have said his responses were wholly unsatisfying.)
“Others I’ve met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedy’s retirement threatens the right of same-sex couples to marry,” Collins said. “Yet Judge Kavanaugh described the Obergefell decision, which legalized same-gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent. He also cited Justice Kennedy’s recent Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion for the court’s majority, stating that, ‘The days of treating gay and lesbian Americans or and gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the Supreme Court.'”
Marriage equality is but one LGBT rights issue. Other LGBT-related cases that may come to Supreme Court with Kavanaugh on the bench including litigation challenging President Trump’s transgender military ban, whether federal civil laws against sex discrimination applies to LGBT people and whether “religious freedom” affords a right for individuals and businesses to discriminate against LGBT people.
Sharon McGowan, legal director for Lambda Legal, also criticized Collins, saying the senator’s rationale for supporting Kavanaugh ranges “from naïve to disingenuous” and “can only be described as magical thinking.”
“Furthermore, her discrediting of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s (and others’) allegations against Brett Kavanaugh speaks far more loudly than the empty words she offered in support of sexual assault survivors, and her reliance on an incomplete and politically manipulated investigation to justify her decision was shameful,” McGowan said. “By relying on fantasy instead of fact, and by putting party ahead of people, Sen. Collins is apparently willing to ignore the overwhelming majority of Mainers who have urged her to oppose this nomination in order to avoid the ire of Republican Party bosses and the White House.”
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Risking it all for love during World War II
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
