National
Obama, Kennedy and a year of change
From President Obama’s inauguration to the National Equality March, the last 12 months brought a variety of real and symbolic change for LGBT Americans. Marriage was the top story of the year, but here are the 10 other biggest stories of 2009.
ten
Barack Obama becomes 44th president: Telling a massive National Mall crowd that, “all are equal, all are free,” Barack Obama became the nation’s 44th president Jan. 20. Gays from across the country joined the estimated 1.8 million people on Capitol Hill who watched Obama take the oath of office. Seconds after Obama took the oath, a detailed narrative describing Obama’s support for gay rights legislation was published to the White House web site. The page noted Obama’s support for a gay and transgender inclusive hate crimes bill, an employment non-discrimination bill covering gays and transgender people, and overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” among other issues. The section also mentioned Obama’s call to repeal the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and his support for new legislation that would provide full marriage-related rights and benefits for same-sex couples joined in civil unions or domestic partnerships.
nine
Nation mourns Kennedy: Sen. Edward Kennedy was remembered as the LGBT community’s “strongest advocate in the United States Senate” when he died in August at age 77. Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese noted that Kennedy championed LGBT issues in Congress before doing so was politically acceptable and offered a strong voice of support in the 1980s when the HIV/AIDS epidemic began taking the lives of gay men. Kennedy went on to become a staunch supporter of same-sex marriage and in 1996 was among 14 senators to vote on the Senate floor against the Defense of Marriage Act. He also spoke on the Senate floor against the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. “Make no mistake,” he said, “a vote for the federal marriage constitutional amendment is a vote against civil unions, domestic partnerships and other efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.”
eight
Gay federal workers get limited benefits: President Obama took what activists described as his “first step” on gay civil rights in June when he signed a presidential memorandum granting a limited number of federal employee benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers. Among the new benefits were long-term care insurance and the use of sick time to care for a domestic partner and non-biological, non-adopted child. Additionally, the same-sex partners of U.S. Foreign Service workers were granted access to the use of medical facilities at overseas posts, medical evacuation privileges from such posts and inclusion of same-sex families in overseas housing allocations. Notably absent from the list was health insurance and retirement benefits. White House officials said the administration is prohibited from providing the perks to the same-sex partners of federal workers without a change in the civil service personnel statute and the Defense of Marriage Act.
seven
Gay man leads U.S. Office of Personnel Management: John Berry became the Obama administration’s highest-ranking openly gay official in May when he was sworn in as director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The ceremony notably occurred at OPM headquarters in Northwest Washington — the same building where officials once carried out a policy that allowed them to deny employment to gays seeking federal jobs. On hand for the event was longtime gay civil rights activist Frank Kameny, who was fired by the federal government in 1957 because of his sexual orientation. Berry lauded Kameny, noting that Kameny’s work made Berry’s appointment possible. “For that, Frank, I personally thank you for your leadership, your passion, and your persistence and express our nation’s appreciation for your courage in teaching America to live up to our promise and our potential,” Berry said.
six
Obama cheered at Pride event: President Obama and his wife won cheers and shouts of “I love you!” from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists during a White House celebration in June commemorating Pride and marking the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion. The gathering came as many activists urged the president to take greater action on LGBT issues, including the repeal of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Obama told the crowd that the nation “cannot — and will not — put aside issues of basic equality” and that he seeks “an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.”
five
Lesbian elected mayor of Houston: Gay rights advocates heralded the victory of lesbian Annise Parker in her bid to become Houston’s next mayor as a triumph for LGBT Americans. Parker, a Democrat and city controller for Houston, won the December election after taking 53 percent of the vote. Her win marked the seventh time she’d won a citywide election in Houston and made the city the most populous in the country to elect an openly LGBT mayor. Paul Scott, executive director for Equality Texas, said Parker’s victory was significant on many levels. “I think in some ways, we’ve seen the ceiling being broken, not only within the Houston area and Texas, but also nationally in terms of an open lesbian being elected into the highest-level office in the metropolitan area for the fourth largest city in the country,” he said.
four
Justice Department criticized for DOMA defense: Gay activists were outraged in June when the U.S. Justice Department defended the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act by citing child rearing and procreation as reasons why a court should dismiss a legal challenge of it. Some gay Democratic activists who supported Obama in the 2008 presidential election said administration insiders told them the president was not directly consulted on the brief’s wording, but he nonetheless drew significant criticism. When the Justice Department acted again in August to defend DOMA against a separate challenge, the language was toned down and included a note that “this administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal.”
three
Washington Blade ends 40-year run: After chronicling the LGBT community for 40 years, the Washington Blade published its final issue Friday, Nov. 13. Abruptly forced to close as its parent company, Window Media, went into Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the Blade was widely acknowledged as the LGBT community’s newspaper of record. It covered a range of issues — from the outbreak of the HIV/AIDS epidemic to the advent of same-sex marriage — with a depth unmatched by mainstream media outlets. But coverage of local and national LGBT issues did not end when the Blade locked its doors. Strongly supported by Blade advertisers and readers, the newspaper’s staff quickly founded a new publication and distributed the first issue Nov. 20. The DC Agenda, a local, employee-owned business, is now in its seventh week.
two
Obama signs hate crimes bill: Despite several efforts to derail the bill, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law in October as part of the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Authorization Act. The act allows the Justice Department to assist in the prosecution of hate crimes based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity, among other categories. “After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens form violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are,” Obama said. Opponents had argued the law was tantamount to creating thought crimes and could limit free speech rights.
one
National Equality March hits Washington: Tens of thousands of protesters descended on the nation’s capital in October to urge Congress and President Obama to extend full legal equality to LGBT people. Featuring a mix of veteran speakers and young faces, the weekend event included a march past the White House that ended outside the U.S. Capitol. Participants carried rainbow-colored flags and held signs calling for immediate action to enact equality. The bright, nearly cloudless sky and unseasonably warm weather welcomed crowds as several high-profile speakers called the participants to action. “If you believe we are equal, then it is time to act like it,” said Cleve Jones, a longtime gay activist and one of the chief organizers of the march. “A free and equal people do not tolerate prioritization of their rights. They do not accept compromises. They do not accept delays.”
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.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
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
