Connect with us

National

Minnesota votes down marriage amendment

Anti-gay effort defeated at ballot

Published

on

Minnesota, gay news, Washington Blade
Minnesota, gay news, Washington Blade

Results of a recent poll placed opposition to the Minnesota proposition to ban same-sex marriage ahead of support for the first time. (Public domain image)

For the second time in American history, voters have rejected a ballot measure proposing a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Minnesota was joined by Maine, Maryland and Washington in putting a same-sex marriage question before voters this year on Election Day. However, unlike the other three states, which asked voters to approve of an extension of rights to same-sex couples, the Minnesota question asked voters to codify in the state constitution the current prohibition on same-sex marriage, which is more difficult to later undo.

According to the Minnesota secretary of state, only 47 percent of eligible voters had cast votes in support of the amendment at the time this was published, just below the majority needed.

The only other state to reject such an amendment was Arizona in 2006 with Proposition 107, which would have banned in the state constitution recognition of both marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples. However, in 2008, a less-restrictive constitutional amendment was approved by voters.

In Minnesota — unlike other states — the law dictates that for a constitutional amendment to pass, it must be supported beyond simply having more yes votes than no votes, according to the Star Tribune. For the amendment to pass, the number of yes votes must be equal to or greater than 51 percent of the total number of voters casting votes in that election. This means that if the amendment had received more yes votes than no votes, but the number of yes votes was fewer than 51 percent of the total number of people casting ballots this year, the amendment still fails. Since some voters opt not to vote on ballot measures, this scenario was one very possible outcome this election night.

A final Star Tribune poll prior to voting put opposition to the amendment at 47 percent, but support only 1 percent higher at 48.

According to the Associated Press, supporters of the amendment poured $5 million into the campaign producing television and radio ads, rallies and electioneering materials, however opponents of the amendment far outspent the backers, raising over $11 million.

Amendment 1, which read “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman,” was opposed by more than 30 businesses and organizations, including the state conferences of the Unitarian Universalist Church, the Minneapolis area synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Minnesota’s state Democratic party, General Mills, Thompson Reuters and a myriad of city councils, hospitals, colleges, unions and professional associations.

The amendment was also opposed by Gov. Mark Dayton and U.S. Sen. Al Franken, as well as President Barack Obama, and outspoken Vikings punter Chris Kluwe. The constitutional amendment was supported publicly by the Minnesota Catholic Conference and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Despite the $5 million ad blitz urging voters to support amending the constitution, David Wiczer, a straight doctoral candidate at the University of Minnesota, voted against the amendment because he believes it delays the inevitable.

“I voted no on that,” Wiczer told the Blade. “I believe that gay marriage ought to be legal, so enshrining a restriction in the constitution will set back progress on that greatly. It seemed to me as a way to erect a bulwark against a cause that’s eventually going to happen.”

With the exception of Arizona, before election night, every electorate that had voted on barring same-sex marriage had approved their constitutional amendment.

Alaska and Hawaii were the first states to bar same-sex nuptials in their constitutions in 1998. Nebraska and Nevada followed in 2000 and 2002 respectively, then in 2004, 13 states voted to add amendments to their constitutions: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Kansas and Texas followed in 2005, while Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin followed in 2006. Since then California, Florida and North Carolina have all also amended their state constitutions to bar same-sex marriages and — in some cases — civil unions and other forms of domestic contracts as well, bringing to 31 the number of states that do.

Before election night, six states and the District of Columbia have extended the full rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont.

Also before election night, nine states had barred same-sex marriage in law, but not through constitutional amendment: Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports

27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.

In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.

The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.

“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.

He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”

“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”

Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”

Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House

University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

Published

on

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon (Screen capture: C-SPAN)

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”

The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.

“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”

Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”

Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”

Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.

Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.

The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.

Continue Reading

New York

Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade

One of the victims remains in critical condition

Published

on

The Stonewall National Memorial in New York on June 19, 2024. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.

According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.

The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.

The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.

In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.

The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.

New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.

“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”

Continue Reading

Popular