News
Why doesn’t outrage over Arizona translate to ENDA support?
Outcry over vetoed anti-gay bill not inspiring calls for Congress to act
Will U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) take note of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer‘s veto of an anti-gay measure and bring up ENDA? (Washington Blade photo of John Boehner by Michael Key; photo of Jan Brewer by Gage Skidmore courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Within one week, national outrage over anti-LGBT discrimination was able to kill a controversial “turn away the gay” bill in Arizona, but almost 40 years after an early version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act was introduced in Congress, the bill still hasn’t become law.
The unprecedented firestorm of opposition leading to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto of SB 1062 raises questions about why that energy can’t be harnessed to institute federal protections against the discrimination the legislation would have enabled.
The outcry among LGBT advocates, Republican lawmakers, faith groups and the media against the Arizona bill was widespread. The legislation would have allowed any person — which under the bill could be an individual, a religious assembly or business — to deny services based on a religious belief.
Among Republicans, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) urged a veto of the measure. They were followed by surprise calls to reject the measure from former Republican presidential contenders generally known for their opposition to LGBT rights: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
On the business side, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce opposed the legislation as well as corporate tech giants Apple and Intel. Major companies based in Arizona — U.S. Airways and retailer PetSmart — also called on Brewer to veto the bill. The National Football League even weighed in and, according to a report in Sports Illustrated, reportedly considered moving next year’s Super Bowl XLIX out of Phoenix if the measure became law.
Scott Wooledge, a gay New York-based netroots advocate who sought to get major U.S. companies on the record against SB 1062, said he thinks the “broad and vague” language of the bill is what triggered the massive outcry among businesses.
“Individuals could assert under Arizona law that they have the right to fire their gay subordinate,” Wooledge said. “They could say you hired me and I have this gay executive assistant, and I’m firing him because he offends my religious liberty. What would Intel do under this situation because that would be a violation of their company policy, and their own employees would have the force of law behind them?”
But other religious exemption bills that would enable anti-LGBT discrimination have advanced without as much outcry. In Kansas, the state House approved a measure specifically aimed at allowing businesses to refuse services for weddings. Despite media reports that the measure is dead, at least one advocate on the ground has said he expects action soon in the Senate.
In Mississippi, the Senate passed legislation, SB 2681, which would give businesses a license to discriminate against customers based on personal religious beliefs that is under consideration in the House. Although LGBT advocates have spoken out against these measures, the level of outcry isn’t the same as in Arizona.
A number of observers who spoke to the Washington Blade pointed out an obvious distinction: SB 1062 managed to reach the governor’s desk while others haven’t made it that far.
Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy and politics for the Third Way, also said Arizona has a special distinction because it has a reputation for passing controversial bills, such as SB 1070, which allowed law enforcement to ask individuals perceived as being immigrants for registration documents before the measure was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Folks in Arizona are particularly sensitive about their state getting a bad rap and losing business after the anti-immigrant legislation caused such an uproar,” Erickson Hatalsky said. “This bill was similarly poorly written and would’ve allowed a parade of horribles that made it easy to convince businesses and the public that it was a bad idea, especially on top of that current sensitivity about the state’s reputation.”
But the situation in Arizona was striking not just for the outcry over the legislation, but the wall-to-wall coverage from national mainstream media on the bill on networks like MSNBC and CNN.
As Media Matters notes, even Fox News, which has a reputation of shilling for conservatives, aired commentary from conservative analysts in opposition to the bill. Andrea Tantaros, co-host of “The Five,” compared the bill to the racist Jim Crow laws in the South and said she doesn’t know why “you would want to bring Jim Crow laws back to the forefront for homosexuals.”
Cathy Renna, a New York-based public affairs specialist, said the media coverage of the Arizona bill is part of a trend of growing attention to LGBT rights amid rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court on marriage equality.
“We obviously cannot turn on the TV or look at any website, or if people still flip through newspapers, not seeing a story about this,” Renna said. “It’s almost impossible, and it’s creating a whole new level of conversation about the issue of discrimination, and I think it’s really showing how we have a ton of momentum that’s come a long way, but we still have a lot that we need to do.”
Turning Arizona outrage to ENDA
But if a bill that would have enabled discrimination against LGBT people inspired so much angst, why isn’t that same energy helping to advance measures that would protect against this kind of discrimination, at least in employment, at the federal level?
John Aravosis, editor of AMERICAblog, said the distinction is the Arizona bill was a negative anti-gay measure that could have been enacted by Brewer’s signature within a week, and it’s harder to muster the energy to pass a positive law that can be constantly delayed.
“If the president had a week to decide and then ENDA would be dead forever, people might be a little more engaged, and there might be a little more pressure on him,” Aravosis said. “But the negative is always better reality in playing to the grassroots than the positive. It shouldn’t be, but it is.”
Not helping matters is a misconception that federal protections against LGBT people in the workplace are already in place. According to a YouGov/Huffington Post poll made public in October, 69 percent of Americans incorrectly believe firing someone for being gay or lesbian is illegal.
It’s that kind of false understanding that Erickson Hatalsky said makes people satisfied with the status quo and unwilling to make changes to law as other issues surrounding LGBT rights move quickly.
“If they don’t see a huge problem happening in front of them, they say, ‘Whatever the law is, it must be working,'” Erickson Hatalsky said. “So that really plays to our benefit when it’s an overly broad religious liberty attack like the one in Arizona. It does exactly the opposite when we’re trying to pass affirmative non-discrimination.”
Amid the national outcry over the Arizona bill, President Obama has remained unwilling to sign an executive order barring LGBT discrimination among federal contractors.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney instead touted the importance of ENDA when asked last week for an update on the directive in the aftermath of the Arizona veto, saying the legislative approach “would be far more comprehensive in its effect.” Still, Carney acknowledged the broad opposition to the Arizona bill.
“And it was gratifying to see Americans from all walks of life, including business leaders, faith leaders, regardless of party, speak out against this measure — and it’s further evidence that the American people fundamentally believe in equality, and it’s time to get on the right side of history,” Carney said.
But Congress has shown no signs of moving forward. Months after the Senate approved ENDA by a bipartisan 64-32 vote, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner held a meeting with the LGBT Equality Caucus and threw cold water on the bill, either saying there’s “no way” ENDA would come this session or it’s “highly unlikely.” Still, those in attendance see an opportunity for a bill to come up after Election Day during the lame duck session of Congress.
Seeking discharge petition, Paul Ryan’s help
The effort to link the discrimination that would have been allowed under the Arizona bill to the need to pass ENDA is daunting, but something observers say can happen.
Wooledge said the situation over the Arizona bill was different than the effort to enact federal workplace protections because there was a singular focus, a veto, and a singular target, Brewer. If supporters settled on a discharge petition as the method to pass ENDA in the House, Wooledge said, the results would be similar.
“I have full confidence that the progressive coalition that coalesced around SB 1062 would do a very similar campaign to persuade legislators both Democratic and Republican to sign the discharge petition, but they don’t want to do that,” Wooledge said. “Human Rights Campaign has never called for a discharge petition, never has the [National] Gay & Lesbian Task Force, so if our own 800-pound gorillas of advocacy don’t want a discharge petition, then Nancy Pelosi is not going to want a discharge petition.”
For Erickson Hatalsky, Arizona demonstrated the importance of having Republican, business and faith leaders on board with an LGBT measure, and said those efforts should continue with ENDA. One way, she said, is getting Republican star Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who voted for ENDA in 2007, to vocalize renewed support.
“I think we’ve only had Jeff Flake and John McCain and those other Republican senators on ENDA for a few months,” Erickson Hatalsky said. “That was a huge step that we’ve taken in the past year, so we just have to keep building on it and make the case to John Boehner that it’s in his best interest to get on board.”
Instead of the Arizona bill, Aravosis said supporters of federal non-discrimination protections should look to the path that led to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” when gay discharged troops brought their stories to the media.
“With ENDA, if we had stories coming out every day, gays in the military…been screwed again today, we’d probably be more successful,” Aravosis said. “That’s the battle to compare it to because we had stories almost every day of these nice people losing their jobs. The folks getting paid to do ENDA are not putting out those stories every day.”
The extent to which national LGBT organizations will draw on the controversy to advance ENDA isn’t yet clear. Freedom to Work didn’t immediately respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment.
Dan Rafter, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization intends to carry the outrage over the Arizona bill to the table in engagement over ENDA.
“Bills like SB 1062 illustrate how vulnerable LGBT people remain when it comes to facing discrimination – be it in their workplace or their communities,” Rafter said. “But the backlash to the bill, including from Republicans and big business, illustrates the incredibly broad support for workplace protections. We are absolutely going to continue elevating that message as we work to build support for ENDA in the House by continuing our engagement with members all across the country.”
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said in a statement to the Blade the veto of the Arizona bill itself demonstrates the time has come for Congress to act on ENDA.
“America is against discrimination but the public thinks protections are already in the law,” Carey said. “The effort to successfully reject Arizona¹s SB 1062 spotlights the lack of federal LGBT anti-discrimination legislation, sends a clear message that extremism is totally unacceptable to people of all political persuasions, and highlights the urgent need for the House to take up and pass ENDA.”
Federal Government
Gay Venezuelan man ‘forcibly disappeared’ to El Salvador files claim against White House
Andry Hernández Romero had asked for asylum in US
A gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who the U.S. “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador has filed a claim against the federal government.
Immigrant Defenders Law Center, who represents Andry Hernández Romero, on Friday announced their client and five other Venezuelans who the Trump-Vance administration “forcibly removed” to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, filed “administrative claims” under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The White House on Feb. 20, 2025, designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump less than a month later invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The White House then “forcibly removed” Hernández, who had been pursuing his asylum case in the U.S., and more than 250 other Venezuelans to El Salvador.
Immigrant Defenders Law Center disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.
Hernández was held at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT, until his release on July 18, 2025. Hernández, who is back in Venezuela, claims he suffered physical and sexual abuse while at CECOT.
“As a Venezuelan citizen with no criminal record anywhere in the world, I would like to tell not only the government of the United States but governments everywhere that no human being is illegal,” said Hernández in the Immigrant Defenders Law Center press release. “The practice of judging whole communities for the wrongdoing of a single individual must end. Governments should use their power to help every person in the nation become more aware and informed, to strengthen our cultures and build a stronger generation with principles and values — one that multiplies the positive instead of destroying unfulfilled dreams and opportunities.”
Immigrant Defenders Law Center filed claims on behalf of Hernández and the five other Venezuelans less than three months after American forces seized then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their home in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital.
Maduro and Flores have pleaded not guilty to federal drug charges. Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s vice president, is Venezuela’s acting president.
‘Due process and accountability cannot be optional’
Immigrant Defenders Law Center on Friday also made the following demands:
- The Trump administration must officially release the names of all people the United States sent to CECOT to ensure that everyone has been or will be released.
- The federal government must clear the names of the 252 men wrongfully labeled as criminal gang members of Tren de Aragua.
- DHS (Department of Homeland Security) must end the practice of outsourcing torture through third‑country removals, restore humanitarian parole, and rebuild a functioning, humane asylum system.
- DHS must reinstate Temporary Protected Status for all individuals who cannot safely return to their home countries, halt mass deportations and unlawful raids and arrests, and guarantee due process for everyone navigating the immigration system.
- Congress must pass the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, which would repeal the Alien Enemies Act.
“In all my years as an immigration attorney, I have never seen a client simply vanish in the middle of their case with no explanation,” said Immigration Defenders Legal Fund Legal Services Director Melissa Shepard. “In court, the government couldn’t even explain where he was — he had been disappeared.”
“When the government detains and transfers people in secrecy, without transparency or access to the courts, it tears at the basic protections a democracy is supposed to guarantee,” added Shepard. “What this experience makes painfully clear is that due process and accountability cannot be optional. They are the only safeguards standing between people and the kind of lawlessness our clients suffered. We must end third country transfers, restore the asylum system, and humanitarian parole, and reinstate temporary protective status so this nightmare never happens again.”
The White House
Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
Recent policy actions from the White House limit transgender rights in sports, immigration visas, and overarching federal policy.
In a proclamation issued by the Trump White House Thursday night, the president said he would, among other things, “restore public safety” and continue “upholding the rule of law,” while promoting policies that restrict the rights of transgender people.
“We are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written, and ensuring colleges preserve — and, where possible, expand — scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes,” the proclamation reads. “At the same time, we are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
The statement comes amid a broader series of actions by the Trump administration targeting transgender people across multiple federal policy areas, including education, health care, and immigration. A nearly complete list of policies the current administration has put forward can be found on KFF.org.
One day before the proclamation was issued, the U.S. State Department announced changes to visa regulations that could impact transgender and gender-nonconforming people seeking entry into the United States.
The policy, published March 11 and scheduled to take effect April 10, introduces changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, commonly known as the “DV Program.” The rule is framed by the department as an effort to strengthen oversight and prevent fraud within the visa lottery system, which allocates a limited number of immigrant visas annually to applicants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.
However, the updated language also standardizes the use of the term “sex” in federal regulations in place of “gender,” a change that LGBTQ advocates say could create additional barriers for transgender and gender-diverse applicants.
The policy states: “The Department of State (‘Department’) is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (‘DV Program’) to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word ‘shall’ to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term ‘sex’ in lieu of ‘gender’; and replace the term ‘age’ in the DV Program regulations with the phrase ‘date of birth’ to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.”
Advocates say the shift toward using “sex” rather than “gender” in federal immigration rules reflects a broader push by the administration to roll back recognition of transgender identities in federal policy.
According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, an estimated 15,000 to 50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants currently live in the United States, with many entering the country to seek refuge from persecution and hostile governments in their home countries.
Ecuador
Adolescentes trans en Ecuador podrán cambiar datos en su cédula, pero con condicionamientos
Pueden modificar el campo de género en su documento de identidad con requisitos
Por VICTOR H. CARREÑO | En una sentencia del 5 de febrero de 2026, la Corte Constitucional declaró inconstitucional el requisito legal de mayoría de edad para modificar el campo de sexo o género en la cédula de identidad y fija lineamientos para que adolescentes trans puedan cambiar estos datos.
El máximo organismo de control e interpretación constitucional incorpora dos requerimientos: que la persona adolescente se presente al procedimiento administrativo con sus padres y que informes psicosociales acrediten un grado de madurez.
El fallo resuelve una consulta de constitucionalidad de una unidad judicial que lleva una acción de protección contra el Registro Civil presentada por la familia de un adolescente trans que solicitó, en junio de 2023, modificar el campo de género en la cédula.
La institución se negó porque la Ley Orgánica de Gestión de la Identidad y Datos Civiles establece que la rectificación de sexo o género es un procedimiento para personas mayores de 18 años.
El adolescente, cuya identidad se protege en la sentencia, cuenta con el apoyo de sus padres en su transición, que inició en 2020. En una audiencia, su madre expuso que si bien en el ámbito familiar y en el sistema educativo se respeta la identidad de su hijo, fuera de estos hay situaciones, como en consultas médicas en el Seguro Social, en que debe presentar la cédula de él y quienes la reciben preguntan si es el documento equivocado.
En el desarrollo de la sentencia, la Corte expone por qué el requisito de tener mayoría de edad para acceder a la modificación de datos en la cédula es inconstitucional.
Entre varios motivos, explica que restringe los derechos al libre desarrollo de la personalidad e identidad, que la edad no puede exigirse como “criterio determinante y único” para determinar la madurez de un adolescente, y que la medida puede generar impactos negativos en el bienestar psicológico y emocional.
Por ello, indica que existen mecanismos alternativos como la evaluación individualizada, el acompañamiento técnico y la consideración del contexto familiar.
En ese sentido, la Corte dispone al Registro Civil que debe proceder al cambio de los datos de adolescentes trans cuando acudan acompañades de sus representantes legales y con el respaldo de informes psicosociales.
Estos informes, agrega la sentencia, deben ser de profesionales acreditados o de órganos técnicos públicos competentes que sean considerados por el Registro Civil.
El fallo tiene efectos para este caso y otros similares. A diferencia de otras sentencias, la Corte no ordena una reforma a la legislación.
La organización Silueta X, que difundió el caso en un comunicado el 11 de marzo, calificó el fallo como histórico y explicó que este crea jurisprudencia de cumplimiento obligatorio.
🏳️⚧️🌈Un chico trans de 15 años le dijo al Estado ecuatoriano “yo sé quién soy”. Y la Corte Constitucional le dio la razón. 🏛️✊
Este fallo es nuestro. Es tuyo.
🔗 Lee la comunicado completa en nuestra bio.#DerechosTransEcuador #SiluetaX #CorteConstitucional #AdolescentesTrans pic.twitter.com/aXE4FU9VeS
— Asociación SILUETA 'X' (@SiluetaX) March 11, 2026
Sin embargo, otras organizaciones cuestionan los requisitos. Fundación Pakta indica que si bien la sentencia derriba la barrera etaria de la mayoría de edad, la inclusión de informes psicosociales contradice la tendencia global y regional hacia la despatologización.
Pakta menciona, por ejemplo, la Opinión Consultiva 24/17 de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, instrumento que reconoce la identidad autopercebida de las personas y los derechos patrimoniales de parejas del mismo sexo.
El documento, recuerda Pakta en un comunicado, establece que para el reconocimiento de la identidad de género no se debe exigir certificados médicos ni psicológicos. Además, que la Organización Mundial de la Salud reconoció que la identidad trans no es una patología psiquiátrica.
Mientras que la activista Nua Fuentes, de Proyecto Transgénero, considera que los requisitos impuestos por la Corte pueden ser problemáticos. Menciona que frente al desconocimiento y prejuicios, profesionales de salud patologizan la identidad trans.
La Sentencia 4-24-CN/26 sobre la inconstitucionalidad de negar a adolescentes trans cambio de su sexo o género en la cédula es un acto que entreabre la puerta para los derechos, pero también sostiene algunas barreras y es problemático para adolescentes trans #Ecuador
Abro hilo🧵 pic.twitter.com/aKBUlmnU1A— Nua Elizabeth Fuentes Aguirre (@NuaEliz) March 11, 2026
Además, señala que puede haber casos de que la familia y psicólogos expresen rechazo a la identidad trans y limiten los derechos de adolescentes trans. O también menciona casos de abandono de niñes y adolescentes trans y pregunta cómo reconocer su identidad si no cumplen con el requisito de acudir sin representantes legales.
Los condicionamientos para el cambio del campo de sexo o género en la cédula para adolescentes trans marcan también una diferencia con el procedimiento en personas trans de más de 18 años, pues estas —desde las reformas vigentes en 2024— no deben presentar requisitos. Solo su declaración expresa de ser una persona trans que desea que los datos de su cédula estén conformes a su identidad de género.
La madurez de niñeces y adolescencias ha sido un tema abordado en convenciones o instrumentos internacionales. La Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño de la ONU del 2009 es contundente al reconocerles como seres autónomos y capaces de formar sus propias opiniones a través de la experiencia, el entorno, las expectativas sociales y culturales.
Esta convención es mencionada en una sentencia de la Corte Constitucional en que reconoció la identidad de infancias y adolescencias trans en el sistema educativo.
En las Observaciones Generales del Comité de los Derechos del Niño, documentos de interpretación para los alcances de la mencionada Convención, se explica que la madurez es “la capacidad de comprender y evaluar las consecuencias de un asunto determinado”, lo cual debe considerarse en relación con su capacidad individual, contextos, entornos, experiencias de vida y familiar, desarrollo psicológico y no únicamente con su edad biológica.
Además, que la edad cronológica no determina la evolución de las capacidades de las niñeces y adolescencias porque estas crecen a lo largo del tiempo.
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
Ensuring safer drinking water
BMA celebrates enduring influence of Henri Matisse
Gay Venezuelan man ‘forcibly disappeared’ to El Salvador files claim against White House
Capital Stonewall Democrats set to celebrate 50th anniversary
Fla. House passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill
Housewives head to Capitol Hill to promote PrEP coverage
Far-right Chilean President José Antonio Kast takes office
