Connect with us

homepage news

Excuse me, may I be an artist?

Cuba’s Decree 349 is seen as an attempt to stifle expression

Published

on

Campaign on social media networks against Decree 349. From left to right: Artists and activists Adrián Monzón, Lia Villares, Ana Olema and Diddier Santos. (Photo from Cubalex’s Twitter page)

Editor’s note: Tremenda Nota is an independent e-magazine in Cuba that reports on the country’s LGBTI and other minority communities and young people. It is a Washington Blade media partner in Latin America.

Tremenda Nota originally published this story on its website in Spanish.

HAVANA — Shortly after taking office the new Cuban president sharpened systems for censoring independent art in Cuba, provoking protests against Decree 349 at home and abroad.

Activists fighting to repeal Decree 349 argue that by late 2018 any artists without formal connections to a state cultural institution will be considered “criminals.” The government will be able to fine artists, confiscate their materials and can even punish any business that uses an artist’s services.

Rapper Soandry del Río explained to Tremenda Nota that “the decree makes it very clear: Anyone producing art must have a permit and be under the supervision of institutions.”

The new regulations on cultural policy and contracting artists was signed on April 20, 2018, two days after Miguel Díaz-Canel took power, and will take effect in December of this year.

A group of artists and musicians against the decree have sent letters to the Cuban president, to the Office of the Prosecutor General and to Alpidio Alonso, the new minister of culture. They have also attempted to hold a concert on the corner of Damas and San Isidro Streets in Old Havana as well as a protest in front of the Capitol, Parliament’s new headquarters.

Obviously, state security prevented the concert and stopped the artists before they could stage their performance on the steps of the Capitol. Only Yanelys Núñez, a curator and art historian, managed to complete her protest in the name of her colleagues by smearing herself with feces from the floor to symbolize how the Cuban state treats independent creators like “a piece of shit.”

Yanelys Núñez, visual artist Luis Manuel Otero, producer Michel Matos, poet and performer Amaury Pacheco, actress Iris Ruiz and urban musicians Soandry del Río and Sandol Pérez, together with other independent artists, hold regular meetings at the Museum of Politically Uncomfortable Art in Havana. They debate the fundamentals of a manifesto that has yet to be published, while beyond these walls few neighbors seem to be interested in art.

However, on Aug. 11, during the protest concert held by a group of artists on the corner of Damas and San Isidro, locals confronted the police and filmed arrests on their phones. Yanelys Núñez, Luis Manuel Otero and Amaury Pacheco, among others, were detained for several hours.

Nevertheless, independent artists and activists will not give up criticizing the decree, which criminalizes independent art in Cuba.

The law states that, “Whoever provides artistic services without being authorized to do artistic work in an artistic post or occupation” could be fined 1,000 or 2,000 Cuban pesos ($38 or $75.) Also, the ‘competent authorities’ can confiscate an artist’s materials and other property. If they repeat the offense, the fine increases to 4,000 Cuban pesos ($150.)

“Now they’ll arrest you, they’ll repress you. They already do it without a law, so imagine what they’re going to do with the law,” argued independent producer Michel Matos, one of the founders of the Rotilla Festival.

From left to right: Yanelys Núñez, Nonardo Perea, Amaury Pacheco, Iris Ruiz, Luis Manuel Otero, Soandry del Río and Michel Matos protest against Decree 349. (Photo courtesy of Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara’s Facebook page)

Critical voices argue that the new law establishes the conditions for “preemptive censorship.” According to Laritza Diversent, a lawyer who is the director of Cubalex, in December “we’ll only be able to enjoy artists and artistic expressions that are approved by the state or its institutions.”

The expert argues that the decree itself “fosters selective, discretional and discriminatory application. Will they put the same effort into pursuing musicians charging for services at Yoruba religious ceremonies, as an anti-establishment rapper?”

Decree 349 gives the Ministry of Culture the exclusive authority to grant “permission” to artists. The ministry will designate supervisor-inspectors to “impose the appropriate measures.”

The authorities will not only have the power to fine independent artists, but also to “immediately” suspend public shows held without the consent of the Ministry of Culture or its entities. Supervisor-inspectors can also confiscate materials used for artistic activities and cancel self-employed people’s work permits when in violation of the decree.

What changes if nothing changes?

Until Decree 349 comes into effect contracting artists are regulated by the October 1997 Decree 226, titled “Personal violations of the regulations governing the provision of artistic services.”

Unlike its predecessor, “349 gives the category of a non-state place or public institution to the (private) addresses of independent artists’ spaces and in particular to cuentapropistas (self-employed entrepreneurs),” explains Diversent.

Once the decree comes into effect, cuentapropistas who contract artistic services without the Ministry of Culture’s authorization “cannot invoke their constitutional right to the inviolability of the home” because the buildings where an authorized economic activity is carried out will be considered to be a “non-state public institution.”

Diversent continues, “In other words, the state authorities can enter, search and confiscate as authorized by criminal procedure law.”

Many members of the Facebook group “Artistas cubanxs contra el Decreto 349” (Artists Against Decree 349) think it is no coincidence that the new regulations are appearing in the midst of a generational transition in the country’s power structures. For example, Michel Matos believes that the decree could be the new government’s response to the alternative 00 Havana Biennial held by independent artists in February 2018.

Matos says, “We believe that the authorities are filling the cracks in cultural spaces.” “The transition from Raúl Castro’s power, one of the commanders of the Sierra [Maestra], to Díaz-Canel could be interpreted as a weakening of power by critical sectors or dissidents. That’s why they have to close doors, even before they open.”

The criticism and protests against the new law have not gone unnoticed by several regional organizations. At the end of August, Amnesty International Americas Director Erika Guevara-Rosas said, “Instead of consolidating their control over artists perceived to overstep state-sanctioned criticism, the Cuban authorities should be making progressive changes to protect human rights.”

Nevertheless, a defender of the controversial law reduced the independent artists to “polyps of art and culture” and made no allowance for dialogue between the different parties. The campaign against 349 is a “scuffle in a cultural war, without many signs of artistic altruism or desire for spiritual enhancement,” argued Cuban writer Jorge Ángel Hernández in the digital magazine La Jiribilla.

Decree 349: Yin or Yang?

Unlike the 1997 Decree 226, the new law includes several cultural policy guidelines. Decree 349 also considers the broadcast of pornographic, violent, sexist, vulgar and obscene content to be in violation as well as the use of patriotic symbols, if it is against current legislation. It also penalizes discrimination based on “skin color, gender, sexual orientation, disability and any other injury to human dignity.”

According to several official media sources the new decree answers long-term demands by the artistic profession.

“The letter and spirit of Decree 349 responds to the insistent demands by Cuban intellectuals and artists, trying to give order to the always complex field of art commercialization,” writer Antonio Rodríguez Salvador states in Sancti Spíritus’ provincial newspaper Escambray.

On Sept. 3, Tremenda Nota contacted the National Union of Cuban Writers and Artists (UNEAC) by email. However, the country’s main professional association for artists did not respond and has not issued any statements.

Although visual artist Sandra Ceballos, founder of the independent gallery Espacio Aglutinador, circulated a letter by email asking her colleagues to denounce the decree, to date only the theater company El Ciervo Encantado has rejected this law with a satirical video shared on Facebook. All other demonstrations of support for the campaign against Decree 349 have come from independent Cuban artists, living both in Cuba and abroad.

The few voices publically defending Decree 349 argue that the activists are ignoring the part of the legislation related to cultural policy. Rapper Soandry del Río, in the name of the main group of artists against the law, told Tremenda Nota that they “agree that no xenophobic or racist expressions should be allowed, or anything else of the kind.”

Yanelys Núñez argues that, “They are anti-discrimination regulations but they are also part of a larger strategy. The authorities know that some intellectuals dislike the speakers that people put on the street with loud music or the sexist videos that they play in bars and cafes, for example. They take advantage of that and slip in the other [censorship of independent art].”

Rapper Soandry del Río is one of the artists fighting to repeal Decree 349. (Photo by Maykel González Vivero/Tremenda Nota)

The decree has been criticized for including “imprecise,” “vague” or “excessively broad” restrictions. For example, Article 3.1 penalizes the broadcast of content in the media that “infringes the legal dispositions that regulate the normal cultural development of our society.”

Amnesty International argues that “prohibiting artistic expression based on concepts such as ‘obscene,’ ‘vulgar’ or ‘harmful to ethical and cultural values’ does not meet the tests of legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality required under international human rights law.”

The organization also fears the arbitrary application of the decree to “further crackdown on dissent and critical voices.”

Rapper Soandry del Río believes “the decree is not about art or about people paying their taxes. No, it’s all about control, about a specific political problem.”

Two opinion pieces published in the La Jiribilla defend Decree 349, they argue that it does not “go against artists and their creative expressions,” it just puts limits on the unauthorized practice of a profession; it establishes guidelines for the commercialization of art. Several publications have insinuated that activists against Decree 349 are not real artists or that they are agents funded by imperialism.

In a similar vein, in August the director of the Center of Communication at the Ministry of Culture, Alexis Triana, called artists protesting against the controversial law “mercenaries” and “bandits.”

Despite the state’s cultural institutions’ reluctance to join the debate, Yanelys Leyva insists that the primary goal of the activist group against Decree 349 has been to establish dialogue with institutions about their urgent concerns and needs “in an open space for debate that has not been established.”

However, in Cuba artists criticizing the state’s policies have never been heard by the government. Since 1961, Fidel Castro speech known as “Words to Intellectuals” left those considered to be “counterrevolutionaries,” “hypercritical” or “dissidents” outside the debate.

It is clear that Decree 349 will maintain or reinforce the marginalized positions of those who are outside the political-cultural canon. The Ministry of Culture will decide who they consider to be artists and who are not, what they consider to be art and what is not. “But this process will have highly ideological implications because the Ministry of Culture belongs to the same power structure that governs Cuba,” explains producer Michel Matos.

Matos asks, “If I am a critical artist, if I’ve had a confrontation with the institutions, will the Ministry of Culture give me this approval? You don’t have to be a genius to know they won’t.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

homepage news

Honoring the legacy of New Orleans’ 1973 UpStairs Lounge fire

Why the arson attack that killed 32 gay men still resonates 50 years later

Published

on

Fifty years ago this week, 32 gay men were killed in an arson attack on the UpStairs Lounge in New Orleans. (Photo by G.E. Arnold/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

On June 23 of last year, I held the microphone as a gay man in the New Orleans City Council Chamber and related a lost piece of queer history to the seven council members. I told this story to disabuse all New Orleanians of the notion that silence and accommodation, in the face of institutional and official failures, are a path to healing.  

The story I related to them began on a typical Sunday night at a second-story bar on the fringe of New Orleans’ French Quarter in 1973, where working-class men would gather around a white baby grand piano and belt out the lyrics to a song that was the anthem of their hidden community, “United We Stand” by the Brotherhood of Man. 

“United we stand,” the men would sing together, “divided we fall” — the words epitomizing the ethos of their beloved UpStairs Lounge bar, an egalitarian free space that served as a forerunner to today’s queer safe havens. 

Around that piano in the 1970s Deep South, gays and lesbians, white and Black queens, Christians and non-Christians, and even early gender minorities could cast aside the racism, sexism, and homophobia of the times to find acceptance and companionship for a moment. 

For regulars, the UpStairs Lounge was a miracle, a small pocket of acceptance in a broader world where their very identities were illegal. 

On the Sunday night of June 24, 1973, their voices were silenced in a murderous act of arson that claimed 32 lives and still stands as the deadliest fire in New Orleans history — and the worst mass killing of gays in 20th century America. 

As 13 fire companies struggled to douse the inferno, police refused to question the chief suspect, even though gay witnesses identified and brought the soot-covered man to officers idly standing by. This suspect, an internally conflicted gay-for-pay sex worker named Rodger Dale Nunez, had been ejected from the UpStairs Lounge screaming the word “burn” minutes before, but New Orleans police rebuffed the testimony of fire survivors on the street and allowed Nunez to disappear.

As the fire raged, police denigrated the deceased to reporters on the street: “Some thieves hung out there, and you know this was a queer bar.” 

For days afterward, the carnage met with official silence. With no local gay political leaders willing to step forward, national Gay Liberation-era figures like Rev. Troy Perry of the Metropolitan Community Church flew in to “help our bereaved brothers and sisters” — and shatter officialdom’s code of silence. 

Perry broke local taboos by holding a press conference as an openly gay man. “It’s high time that you people, in New Orleans, Louisiana, got the message and joined the rest of the Union,” Perry said. 

Two days later, on June 26, 1973, as families hesitated to step forward to identify their kin in the morgue, UpStairs Lounge owner Phil Esteve stood in his badly charred bar, the air still foul with death. He rebuffed attempts by Perry to turn the fire into a call for visibility and progress for homosexuals. 

“This fire had very little to do with the gay movement or with anything gay,” Esteve told a reporter from The Philadelphia Inquirer. “I do not want my bar or this tragedy to be used to further any of their causes.” 

Conspicuously, no photos of Esteve appeared in coverage of the UpStairs Lounge fire or its aftermath — and the bar owner also remained silent as he witnessed police looting the ashes of his business. 

“Phil said the cash register, juke box, cigarette machine and some wallets had money removed,” recounted Esteve’s friend Bob McAnear, a former U.S. Customs officer. “Phil wouldn’t report it because, if he did, police would never allow him to operate a bar in New Orleans again.” 

The next day, gay bar owners, incensed at declining gay bar traffic amid an atmosphere of anxiety, confronted Perry at a clandestine meeting. “How dare you hold your damn news conferences!” one business owner shouted. 

Ignoring calls for gay self-censorship, Perry held a 250-person memorial for the fire victims the following Sunday, July 1, culminating in mourners defiantly marching out the front door of a French Quarter church into waiting news cameras. “Reverend Troy Perry awoke several sleeping giants, me being one of them,” recalled Charlene Schneider, a lesbian activist who walked out of that front door with Perry.

(Photo by G.E. Arnold/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

Esteve doubted the UpStairs Lounge story’s capacity to rouse gay political fervor. As the coroner buried four of his former patrons anonymously on the edge of town, Esteve quietly collected at least $25,000 in fire insurance proceeds. Less than a year later, he used the money to open another gay bar called the Post Office, where patrons of the UpStairs Lounge — some with visible burn scars — gathered but were discouraged from singing “United We Stand.” 

New Orleans cops neglected to question the chief arson suspect and closed the investigation without answers in late August 1973. Gay elites in the city’s power structure began gaslighting the mourners who marched with Perry into the news cameras, casting suspicion on their memories and re-characterizing their moment of liberation as a stunt. 

When a local gay journalist asked in April 1977, “Where are the gay activists in New Orleans?,” Esteve responded that there were none, because none were needed. “We don’t feel we’re discriminated against,” Esteve said. “New Orleans gays are different from gays anywhere else… Perhaps there is some correlation between the amount of gay activism in other cities and the degree of police harassment.” 

(Photo by H.J. Patterson/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

An attitude of nihilism and disavowal descended upon the memory of the UpStairs Lounge victims, goaded by Esteve and fellow gay entrepreneurs who earned their keep via gay patrons drowning their sorrows each night instead of protesting the injustices that kept them drinking. 

Into the 1980s, the story of the UpStairs Lounge all but vanished from conversation — with the exception of a few sanctuaries for gay political debate such as the local lesbian bar Charlene’s, run by the activist Charlene Schneider. 

By 1988, the 15th anniversary of the fire, the UpStairs Lounge narrative comprised little more than a call for better fire codes and indoor sprinklers. UpStairs Lounge survivor Stewart Butler summed it up: “A tragedy that, as far as I know, no good came of.” 

Finally, in 1991, at Stewart Butler and Charlene Schneider’s nudging, the UpStairs Lounge story became aligned with the crusade of liberated gays and lesbians seeking equal rights in Louisiana. The halls of power responded with intermittent progress. The New Orleans City Council, horrified by the story but not yet ready to take its look in the mirror, enacted an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting gays and lesbians in housing, employment, and public accommodations that Dec. 12 — more than 18 years after the fire. 

“I believe the fire was the catalyst for the anger to bring us all to the table,” Schneider told The Times-Picayune, a tacit rebuke to Esteve’s strategy of silent accommodation. Even Esteve seemed to change his stance with time, granting a full interview with the first UpStairs Lounge scholar Johnny Townsend sometime around 1989. 

Most of the figures in this historic tale are now deceased. What’s left is an enduring story that refused to go gently. The story now echoes around the world — a musical about the UpStairs Lounge fire recently played in Tokyo, translating the gay underworld of the 1973 French Quarter for Japanese audiences.

When I finished my presentation to the City Council last June, I looked up to see the seven council members in tears. Unanimously, they approved a resolution acknowledging the historic failures of city leaders in the wake of the UpStairs Lounge fire. 

Council members personally apologized to UpStairs Lounge families and survivors seated in the chamber in a symbolic act that, though it could not bring back those who died, still mattered greatly to those whose pain had been denied, leaving them to grieve alone. At long last, official silence and indifference gave way to heartfelt words of healing. 

The way Americans remember the past is an active, ongoing process. Our collective memory is malleable, but it matters because it speaks volumes about our maturity as a people, how we acknowledge the past’s influence in our lives, and how it shapes the examples we set for our youth. Do we grapple with difficult truths, or do we duck accountability by defaulting to nostalgia and bluster? Or worse, do we simply ignore the past until it fades into a black hole of ignorance and indifference? 

I believe that a factual retelling of the UpStairs Lounge tragedy — and how, 50 years onward, it became known internationally — resonates beyond our current divides. It reminds queer and non-queer Americans that ignoring the past holds back the present, and that silence is no cure for what ails a participatory nation. 

Silence isolates. Silence gaslights and shrouds. It preserves the power structures that scapegoat the disempowered. 

Solidarity, on the other hand, unites. Solidarity illuminates a path forward together. Above all, solidarity transforms the downtrodden into a resounding chorus of citizens — in the spirit of voices who once gathered ‘round a white baby grand piano and sang, joyfully and loudly, “United We Stand.” 

(Photo by Philip Ames/Times-Picayune; reprinted with permission)

Robert W. Fieseler is a New Orleans-based journalist and the author of “Tinderbox: the Untold Story of the Up Stairs Lounge Fire and the Rise of Gay Liberation.”

Continue Reading

homepage news

New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences

Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings

Published

on

The U.S. Supreme Court is to set consider the case of 303 Creative, which seeks to refuse design services for same-sex weddings. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court, after a decision overturning Roe v. Wade that still leaves many reeling, is starting a new term with justices slated to revisit the issue of LGBTQ rights.

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court will return to the issue of whether or not providers of custom-made goods can refuse service to LGBTQ customers on First Amendment grounds. In this case, the business owner is Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado who wants to opt out of providing her graphic design services for same-sex weddings despite the civil rights law in her state.

Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, said in an interview with the Blade, “it’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake” for LGBTQ people depending on the outcome of the case.

“This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law,” Pizer said. “And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having a non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you.”

The upcoming arguments and decision in the 303 Creative case mark a return to LGBTQ rights for the Supreme Court, which had no lawsuit to directly address the issue in its previous term, although many argued the Dobbs decision put LGBTQ rights in peril and threatened access to abortion for LGBTQ people.

And yet, the 303 Creative case is similar to other cases the Supreme Court has previously heard on the providers of services seeking the right to deny services based on First Amendment grounds, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In both of those cases, however, the court issued narrow rulings on the facts of litigation, declining to issue sweeping rulings either upholding non-discrimination principles or First Amendment exemptions.

Pizer, who signed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to 303 Creative, said the case is “similar in the goals” of the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation on the basis they both seek exemptions to the same non-discrimination law that governs their business, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, and seek “to further the social and political argument that they should be free to refuse same-sex couples or LGBTQ people in particular.”

“So there’s the legal goal, and it connects to the social and political goals and in that sense, it’s the same as Masterpiece,” Pizer said. “And so there are multiple problems with it again, as a legal matter, but also as a social matter, because as with the religion argument, it flows from the idea that having something to do with us is endorsing us.”

One difference: the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation stemmed from an act of refusal of service after owner, Jack Phillips, declined to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. No act of discrimination in the past, however, is present in the 303 Creative case. The owner seeks to put on her website a disclaimer she won’t provide services for same-sex weddings, signaling an intent to discriminate against same-sex couples rather than having done so.

As such, expect issues of standing — whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit — to be hashed out in arguments as well as whether the litigation is ripe for review as justices consider the case. It’s not hard to see U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to lead the court to reach less sweeping decisions (sometimes successfully, and sometimes in the Dobbs case not successfully) to push for a decision along these lines.

Another key difference: The 303 Creative case hinges on the argument of freedom of speech as opposed to the two-fold argument of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise in the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation. Although 303 Creative requested in its petition to the Supreme Court review of both issues of speech and religion, justices elected only to take up the issue of free speech in granting a writ of certiorari (or agreement to take up a case). Justices also declined to accept another question in the petition request of review of the 1990 precedent in Smith v. Employment Division, which concluded states can enforce neutral generally applicable laws on citizens with religious objections without violating the First Amendment.

Representing 303 Creative in the lawsuit is Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has sought to undermine civil rights laws for LGBTQ people with litigation seeking exemptions based on the First Amendment, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in a Sept. 12 legal brief signed by her and other attorneys that a decision in favor of 303 Creative boils down to a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.

“Colorado and the United States still contend that CADA only regulates sales transactions,” the brief says. “But their cases do not apply because they involve non-expressive activities: selling BBQ, firing employees, restricting school attendance, limiting club memberships, and providing room access. Colorado’s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actor’s speech.”

Pizer, however, pushed back strongly on the idea a decision in favor of 303 Creative would be as focused as Alliance Defending Freedom purports it would be, arguing it could open the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people.

“One way to put it is art tends to be in the eye of the beholder,” Pizer said. “Is something of a craft, or is it art? I feel like I’m channeling Lily Tomlin. Remember ‘soup and art’? We have had an understanding that whether something is beautiful or not is not the determining factor about whether something is protected as artistic expression. There’s a legal test that recognizes if this is speech, whose speech is it, whose message is it? Would anyone who was hearing the speech or seeing the message understand it to be the message of the customer or of the merchants or craftsmen or business person?”

Despite the implications in the case for LGBTQ rights, 303 Creative may have supporters among LGBTQ people who consider themselves proponents of free speech.

One joint friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, written by Dale Carpenter, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues the case is an opportunity to affirm the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive.

“Distinguishing expressive from non-expressive products in some contexts might be hard, but the Tenth Circuit agreed that Smith’s product does not present a hard case,” the brief says. “Yet that court (and Colorado) declined to recognize any exemption for products constituting speech. The Tenth Circuit has effectively recognized a state interest in subjecting the creation of speech itself to antidiscrimination laws.”

Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet set, but may be announced soon. Set to defend the state of Colorado and enforcement of its non-discrimination law in the case is Colorado Solicitor General Eric Reuel Olson. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would grant the request to the U.S. solicitor general to present arguments before the justices on behalf of the Biden administration.

With a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has recently scrapped the super-precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion, supporters of LGBTQ rights may think the outcome of the case is all but lost, especially amid widespread fears same-sex marriage would be next on the chopping block. After the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 303 Creative in the lawsuit, the simple action by the Supreme Court to grant review in the lawsuit suggests they are primed to issue a reversal and rule in favor of the company.

Pizer, acknowledging the call to action issued by LGBTQ groups in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, conceded the current Supreme Court issuing the ruling in this case is “a terrifying prospect,” but cautioned the issue isn’t so much the makeup of the court but whether or not justices will continue down the path of abolishing case law.

“I think the question that we’re facing with respect to all of the cases or at least many of the cases that are in front of the court right now, is whether this court is going to continue on this radical sort of wrecking ball to the edifice of settled law and seemingly a goal of setting up whole new structures of what our basic legal principles are going to be. Are we going to have another term of that?” Pizer said. “And if so, that’s terrifying.”

Continue Reading

homepage news

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign

Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Published

on

Kelley Robinson (Screen capture via HRC YouTube)

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.

Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.

“I’m honored and ready to lead HRC — and our more than three million member-advocates — as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,” Robinson said. “This is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”

Kelley Robinson IS NAMED as The next human rights Campaign president

The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.

“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions — and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.”

The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.

Kelley Robinson, Planned Parenthood, Cathy Chu, SMYAL, Supporting and Mentoring Youth Advocates and Leaders, Amy Nelson, Whitman-Walker Health, Sheroes of the Movement, Mayor's office of GLBT Affairs, gay news, Washington Blade
Kelley Robinson, seen here with Cathy Chu of SMYAL and Amy Nelson of Whitman-Walker Health, is the next Human Rights Campaign president. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular